Comments for CCEPA Blog http://www.ccepa.ca/blog Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:25:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 Comment on Morality and Starvation – Dr. Joe Mendola, Sept. 24, 2009 by Hamish Calder http://www.ccepa.ca/blog/?p=71&cpage=1#comment-205 Hamish Calder Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:25:12 +0000 http://www.ccepa.ca/blog/?p=71#comment-205 I still feel there's a big difference in envelope and pond as the former demands quite a few assumptions to link the cheque with saving a life, or giving a respite for a short period. The Times (UK) East African correspondent has said recently that no one should give money to save the 23m people in drought conditions in his area - since the situation won't change until the people are educated enough to get rid of corrupt leadership. The real difference with the pond is that you can believe you are saving a life by yr direct experience. And problem solved. No need for sustainable action. And where do you stop in the envelope scenario, how many envelopes? Better to give a hungry man a ham sandwich here in Halifax.... We can throw money at an issue if we are sure it makes a difference. We can only do this if we see the cause and effect, and really this is best achieved at a local level - where some proper oversight of the progression of the hunger can be monitored. So, a church or group of churches can send someone out and report back. A town or province could be "twinned" with a needy place in Africa so we could all see whats happening and arrest any doubts on cause and effect. The big charities are possibly too supranational and big for people to sustain a common community type effort. I think the localised input is hugely important to combat cynicism and foster a sustained solidarity. Long standing, big amorphous organisations might be more susceptible to perpetuating their own existences as an end in itself, rather than the means to save the hungry. I have digressed a bit, but its a big subject. I still feel there’s a big difference in envelope and pond as the former demands quite a few assumptions to link the cheque with saving a life, or giving a respite for a short period. The Times (UK) East African correspondent has said recently that no one should give money to save the 23m people in drought conditions in his area – since the situation won’t change until the people are educated enough to get rid of corrupt leadership. The real difference with the pond is that you can believe you are saving a life by yr direct experience. And problem solved. No need for sustainable action. And where do you stop in the envelope scenario, how many envelopes? Better to give a hungry man a ham sandwich here in Halifax…. We can throw money at an issue if we are sure it makes a difference. We can only do this if we see the cause and effect, and really this is best achieved at a local level – where some proper oversight of the progression of the hunger can be monitored. So, a church or group of churches can send someone out and report back. A town or province could be “twinned” with a needy place in Africa so we could all see whats happening and arrest any doubts on cause and effect. The big charities are possibly too supranational and big for people to sustain a common community type effort. I think the localised input is hugely important to combat cynicism and foster a sustained solidarity. Long standing, big amorphous organisations might be more susceptible to perpetuating their own existences as an end in itself, rather than the means to save the hungry. I have digressed a bit, but its a big subject.

]]> Comment on Morality and Starvation – Dr. Joe Mendola, Sept. 24, 2009 by Geoff http://www.ccepa.ca/blog/?p=71&cpage=1#comment-185 Geoff Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:21:31 +0000 http://www.ccepa.ca/blog/?p=71#comment-185 Sort of like Canada World Youth made mandatory? Seems like a tall order, but would certainly be a great experience. I take it the question is, though, once you get individuals engaged, how to make positive headway. As individuals? Governments? NGOs? It's hard to imagine a way which doesn't involve throwing money at an issue, since, as you say, the cheques don't work. Sort of like Canada World Youth made mandatory? Seems like a tall order, but would certainly be a great experience. I take it the question is, though, once you get individuals engaged, how to make positive headway. As individuals? Governments? NGOs? It’s hard to imagine a way which doesn’t involve throwing money at an issue, since, as you say, the cheques don’t work.

]]> Comment on Morality and Starvation – Dr. Joe Mendola, Sept. 24, 2009 by Hamish Calder http://www.ccepa.ca/blog/?p=71&cpage=1#comment-184 Hamish Calder Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:01:30 +0000 http://www.ccepa.ca/blog/?p=71#comment-184 Thanks for that. My view is that individual consciousness needs to be raised to get the start. Until enough individuals are committed to stir groups to sustainable action, I don't think we'll get anywhere as the media is so vast we blank out our indignation by the sheer multitude of tragedies spotlighted. It could be governments pushed by their electorates, but so far it doesn't seem to be a priority. The world vision concept meets some success by personalising it. My guess is that young people should have to be exposed to it in a personal way - perhaps as part of their education, an experience that would stay with them all their lives. Band Aid was a catalyst, but in the end you need countries working together, as supra-national orgs like the UN cannot themselves do it. To me the answer might lie in the local linkage between person and problem that people can identify with. For instance a lady in Scotland started providing lunches for school children in Africa. Its quite a big thing now (Mary's Meals). Sustainability is maybe helped by the dramatic appeal. Perhaps to get the pond action, boatloads of starving children should be brought to the Western world to confront and then stir our morality until we are forced to to remedy by tackling the source. A bit like the Vietnamese ships in the 70s. I don't have the answer but its well worth thinking about. Thanks for that. My view is that individual consciousness needs to be raised to get the start. Until enough individuals are committed to stir groups to sustainable action, I don’t think we’ll get anywhere as the media is so vast we blank out our indignation by the sheer multitude of tragedies spotlighted. It could be governments pushed by their electorates, but so far it doesn’t seem to be a priority. The world vision concept meets some success by personalising it. My guess is that young people should have to be exposed to it in a personal way – perhaps as part of their education, an experience that would stay with them all their lives. Band Aid was a catalyst, but in the end you need countries working together, as supra-national orgs like the UN cannot themselves do it. To me the answer might lie in the local linkage between person and problem that people can identify with. For instance a lady in Scotland started providing lunches for school children in Africa. Its quite a big thing now (Mary’s Meals). Sustainability is maybe helped by the dramatic appeal. Perhaps to get the pond action, boatloads of starving children should be brought to the Western world to confront and then stir our morality until we are forced to to remedy by tackling the source. A bit like the Vietnamese ships in the 70s. I don’t have the answer but its well worth thinking about.

]]> Comment on Morality and Starvation – Dr. Joe Mendola, Sept. 24, 2009 by Geoff http://www.ccepa.ca/blog/?p=71&cpage=1#comment-179 Geoff Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:18:13 +0000 http://www.ccepa.ca/blog/?p=71#comment-179 Hi Hamish, thanks for weighing in. I would agree that the lecture focused mainly on what you call "nuances of approach." The thing is, these "nuances" consisted, I would argue, in the morals at work behind the issue of world poverty. Half the topic, right? It's not that the "shallow pond" example was a success and the "envelope/cheque" example was a failure. Once deconstructed, they are the same - morally speaking: in both cases one acts immorally by failing to act. I think Mendola used these examples moreso as a call to action: we think one is acceptable, yet not the other, so isn't it time we changed our ways of thinking? As for how to proceed from there, now THAT is a tougher question. Mendola did distinguish between individual and governmental approaches to dealing with global poverty. NGOs, I take it, fall somewhere in between. Which approach - or combination thereof - ought to serve best moving forward ... now ain't that the million dollar question? Maybe cheques won't do any longer ... but what alternatives do are you suggesting? Hi Hamish, thanks for weighing in.

I would agree that the lecture focused mainly on what you call “nuances of approach.” The thing is, these “nuances” consisted, I would argue, in the morals at work behind the issue of world poverty. Half the topic, right? It’s not that the “shallow pond” example was a success and the “envelope/cheque” example was a failure. Once deconstructed, they are the same – morally speaking: in both cases one acts immorally by failing to act. I think Mendola used these examples moreso as a call to action: we think one is acceptable, yet not the other, so isn’t it time we changed our ways of thinking?

As for how to proceed from there, now THAT is a tougher question. Mendola did distinguish between individual and governmental approaches to dealing with global poverty. NGOs, I take it, fall somewhere in between. Which approach – or combination thereof – ought to serve best moving forward … now ain’t that the million dollar question? Maybe cheques won’t do any longer … but what alternatives do are you suggesting?

]]> Comment on Morality and Starvation – Dr. Joe Mendola, Sept. 24, 2009 by Hamish Calder http://www.ccepa.ca/blog/?p=71&cpage=1#comment-162 Hamish Calder Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:08:13 +0000 http://www.ccepa.ca/blog/?p=71#comment-162 I attended Mendola's lecture, and whilst I concur largely with his message of consequences, I felt that actually the question of what an individual can do abt world starvation needed further thought. I think that society has failed, and that cheques aren't working - oxfam started in 60s, but the problem is worse now-arguably? We prob need to work in groups, but new ones that will engage the pond success against the letter failure. I felt the lecture was too caught up in the nuances of approach rather than the core question of what future action is needed. To eradicate world poverty can be done in cash terms with a fraction of US military budget, but how to sustain even if cash was forthcoming? I attended Mendola’s lecture, and whilst I concur largely with his message of consequences, I felt that actually the question of what an individual can do abt world starvation needed further thought. I think that society has failed, and that cheques aren’t working – oxfam started in 60s, but the problem is worse now-arguably? We prob need to work in groups, but new ones that will engage the pond success against the letter failure. I felt the lecture was too caught up in the nuances of approach rather than the core question of what future action is needed. To eradicate world poverty can be done in cash terms with a fraction of US military budget, but how to sustain even if cash was forthcoming?

]]>