>Sean wrote quite a bit so most is on comments but here’s the start:
Recently it has come to light that Tiger had an affair and his Swedish wife went viking on him and attacked his car with a golf club, causing him to crash. The media has run with this as its top story in most instances.
>We all buy extravagancies we don’t need, from wii’s and x-box’s to cars and widescreen t.v’s. Yet we also all know that there are people suffering and dying in the world who don’t have the basic requirements (food, water etc). The basic idea is this – I always wonder how people can live their lives the way they do and still believe that they are good people when they know this, and could give up what I will call their ‘higher pleasures’, to help others more desperate.
At the moment my personal answer is that those of us who believe they are largely good are either stupid or ignorant. Of course we do the occasional ‘good’ things, however none of you (us) will do something as trivial as buying one less bottle of vodka for a party, or one less dvd, and instead give that money to charity (even if it means saving the life of someone wev’e never met for food or water, because thats about the equivelant cost).
It can also be said though, that as individuals we can only feel our own happiness/sadness etc – which makes it more potent than other peoples. For instance you can hear on the news that 5000 people have died – and when asked if they would trade their own lives instead, most people would say no.
Personally I believe that we are a lot more selfish than we are willing to admit, and are often only prepared to help those who share the same blood (if, for instance, it means carrying on our genes) or those who we know well, and I can’t see how any other answer would coup d’etat mine, but responses are welcome. But we can’t kid ourselves that we wouldn’t go to Hell if it exists (which it doesn’t). As always you’ve been a wonderful audience, now stop being selfish – peace out.
>I’m merely a social realist (perhaps this is syniclism in itself?). But I can’t see how any other view of the world is realistic. In my perfect athiestic world, we would all be similar to Jesus, without the ‘life after death in heaven’ nonsense. Having said that perhpas I am too judgemental – we are after all, only human with finite lives.
What annoys me, is that if I thought I had the chance to live forever (as most people do) I would be kind, give pretty much all i had to charity etc. But for these people its still not enough – they still have to be selfish in this world as well, and manage to delude themselves doubly so, by believing that they will get into Heaven or Valhaller or whatever. Thus ignorance = bliss/happiness. Is it right for people to be happy if they are wrong? All I can say is, I wish I was ignorant and happy. Happiness is, after all, a persons soul goal in life. Disagree.
>In many countries around the world certain groups of people are barred from voting. In the UK this list includes:
Why do I tell you this? The Economist recently published an article asking that we give the vote to prisoners. I disagree. But do you think we should change who can vote in the UK or any country? In some US states anyone who goes to prison loses their votes for life.
>Is murder wrong? Should we all be vegetarian? Should we be vegan? Should we be fruitarian? Where should we draw the line and why?
>Do you remember the crisis in East Africa that prompted Live Aid? Live Aid brought tremendous benefits. But it was only ever going to be a temporary solution. Now we are faced with a problem even worse than before.
The International Committee of the Red Cross says famine is going to be worse than ever! And where does the famine strike? Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, South Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and the Central Africal Republic.
What do you think should be done? Is this the world’s problem? Africa’s problem? Or just East Africa’s problem?
>Matt: The testing of drugs on animals is important for drug development. But some animals like lab rats and mice are different from humans and may therefore respond to drugs differently. The response of a rat to a newly developed drug might be good but on a human it might do nothing. Should more human tests be done?
Battison's Blog 