Prompt #2

Martin Luther King Jr. discussed the elimination of the idea of an "outside agitator," arguing that we ar all bound by common destiny and mutual fate. Perhaps this is true for our nation, and I doubt anyone would disagree with his idea that anyone who lives within the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds. However, some people take this idea further, arguing that we are duty bound to give whatever aid we can globally. Why is it that we owe these people? It makes sense that we pay taxes to support our own country; our government protects us and gives us services, and we in turn are dutiful citizens. But what links us to the rest of the human race? That line of thinking is paritally responsible for wars such as Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq. Both of these conflicts also had ulterior political motives, but what was their selling point to the public? That we are helping to liberate the oppressed people. These are extreme examples, but they show how thinking that are somehow obligated to help everyone who we deem in need of it can be dangerous to our national well-being. On a smaller scale, many people feel that we are morally bound to help those in need in our own country. In some cases, such as Katrina, yes we should feel an obligation to our countrymen, and also to help revive one of our nation's major cities. But in other cases, such as giving money to the homeless, there is no mutual benefit. Of course its not really a sacrifice to give whatever spare change you have to a vagrant, and I do it too occasionally, but my argument is more against those who say we should or we have to give to the poor. We owe to the community only what it gives to us, and vice versa. As individuals, we cannot expect handouts or free rides to fall into our laps without putting forth any effort, and at the same time, we have no extra obligations to the community. This may seem cold and selfish, but all too often moral obligation is used as a weapon, to guilt us into sacrificing or giving when there really is no obligation. And to those who say we have to sacrifice because as humans we all share some bond, why not then give everything you have to charity and live as simply as possible? Some people do this, and I admire them, but I do not wish to emulate them, and the rest are hypocrites who think that giving a couple hundred dollars to charity somehow gives them a moral high ground.

Prompt One: The Unquestioned Life

The standard cliché response to this question is that of course it is wrong not to question anything, then how can you be truly happy or know yourself or something similar to that. I think that when someone reads this question, this becomes an automatic response because the term "ignorance" is used. No one wants to be ignorant, it has a negative connotation, and as students, we have been taught that it is always better to have more knowledge. Mark Twain talked about only following your feelings for what the majority would consider to be right, and not forming your own independant opinions. And for the most part, it is true that this is the wrong course. Think where the world would be today if no one had ever questioned the status quo and gone along with the majority. The term, "revolution" as we know it would cease to exist, along with the notion of democracy and our own country. So, yes questioning public opinion is a good thing, we should not go through life as lemmings, being lead off a cliff because everyone else is. However, I don't buy the notion that we need to truly "know ourselves" in order to life fully. There are several examples where you really do not want to know the truth. Do you really want to know what goes into a hot dog? Or how about if your significant other was unfaithful many years ago but it was only once and now he or she loves you dearly? What about if you had a genetic disorder causing you to become a paranoid schizophrenic when you reached a certain age? Would you really want to know if that was going to happen or live the remainder of your sane years as a happy person. Now, of course, some people are going to disagree and say they would like to know these things (these are most likely also the same people who have the automatic reaction to the question that I stated at the beginining of this post). They want to know exactly what they are eating, they want to know any past indiscretion their lover may have had, they want to know exactly what is going to happen to them. Socrates said that we should truly examine everything, but I would argue that these people would eventually become cynics and not take joy out of anything because they have to know the whole truth about everything. It is a natural tendency of people to want to have the illusion of happiness, even if deep down they know it is a deception. What, exactly, is so wrong with not looking outside your bubble of comfort? In Socrates's argument, he claimed that people who did not subject their life to constant examination would be blind to what is truly important in life, but isn't what is truly important subject to each individual? I disagree with the moral obligation argument or the argument that we have some sort of purpose or role to fullfil in life. If you can manage to life a reasonably comfortable life and die a happy person then that is all that you can ask. There is no way to live "correctly," simply live however you need to to reach your own goals. Questioning is a good thing, we should never simply take things at face value because we feel the public opinion says it is right, however we should also recognize that in certain instances, ignorance is bliss, and spending your time looking for every ugly little truth can leave you just as empty inside as the lemmings who are lead off the cliff.