The Ethical Theories class I took last semester was one of the best I've taken at Cal. One reoccurring objection to various theories was the Demandingness Objection. It goes something like this.
Let's say you have a theory such as Utilitarianism, which says that the moral thing to do is to maximize utility (utility can be understood as something like units of goodness or happiness). That would seem to imply that I must try to do the most optimal action at all times, and anything short of that would be immoral. In short, the theory is too demanding, because can't I be moral without giving ALL my money to starving children in Africa?
That objection always brought to mind what I saw in Cambodia this past summer. Huge mansions, bigger than I've ever seen in person before, surrounded by lawns and gates. And littered around these mansions were dingy shacks, people living in absolute poverty. I imagine the demandingness objection in the mouths of the rich; surely, I'm not required to give up ALL my money to help these others? I earned my money, why should I give it up? Surely I can be moral without being supererogatory (going above and beyond my duties)?
Ridiculous, completely immoral, callous, wicked. There's a place for the demandingness objection when discussing ethics, but more often than not it's just an excuse to justify sins of ommission, avoiding what ought to be done. Those rich Cambodians are morally required to help their poor neighbors, and we're morally required to help the poor too. Forget whether or not we're required to MAXIMIZE utility and give ALL our money, how many of us give ANY money?
That's one reason I'm proud of what Gracepoint does on Compassion Sunday, which we had just a little while ago. It takes $32 a month to sponsor a compassion child, which provides food, clothing, vaccinations, education, community. Many people in our church are already sponsoring multiple compassion children, and somehow we manage to sponsor more every year. This time around, members of our church sponsored all 100 compassion children provided to us to sponsor within the five minutes of service ending.
Now that is a beautiful thing.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Paper Paradigms
There's a post-Bible study activity we do sometimes in Koinonia. We split into groups of about 5 and are provided a limited assortment of straws, paper, coffee stir sticks, and a lot of tape. We're then given 5 minutes to build a tower that can hold as many textbooks as possible. Each team's final score is determined by some formula involving the height of the tower and the number of textbooks it can support.
The first minute is inevitably a flurry of conversation and debate with many different competing schools of thought. Looking at the textbooks and the paper we have to hold them with, some say that what we really need is a strong base to carry as many textbooks as possible. Others say that we can build a really tall tower because the advantage in height will be worth being able to carry less books. And there's also the middle road, aiming for some combination of the two.
It always seem like other groups know exactly what they're doing, and as we realize that other groups have already begun constructing and time is running out, we hastily decide on a plan and start distributing tasks. This part is also crucial. There's too little time for one person to complete everything. So some begin to work on the base, some begin to work on the successive layers to put on top the base, and usually there's another just cutting tape for the others. The time always runs out too soon, and the time of testing begins. We hold our breath as heavy textbooks are placed on top of our paper towers, anxiously wondering if what we've built will hold up against the weight of reality.
I got thinking about this team exercise that we do for fun because I was struck recently with how similar it is to church building. There's two similarities I want to make note of.
The first is that there are many different paradigms, many different schools of thought about what will work best. Sometimes when we're building our paper towers, there ends up being no consensus about what model we're going with, and even if we had many different good plans it all ends up being useless because we didn't go with any of them. In the same way, no matter how good a plan may be, it won't work unless people actually go along with it. I think something similar goes for church. We can all have different opinions about the best way to do things, but in the end we have to go along with what's been decided otherwise nothing will work.
This isn't to say "the most important thing is that we all agree," because that isn't true either. Some paradigms clearly work better than others. Often times there's a miscalculation about just how strong the paper is, and the idea of building a really tall tower is disastrous because it ends up getting crushed by the books. Other times, the strong base approach is too conservative and there's not enough height to score a lot of points. Being unified is important, but some paradigms just work better than others.
There's a couple of ways that the analogy doesn't hold. First of all, churches aren't made out of paper. I noticed that sometimes when people point out things that are too obvious to point out like that it's humorous, so I wanted to try it. Anyway... in the paper tower exercise, everyone is given the same materials, and given the exact same objective. With churches, things can be very context specific, and the best approach will often depend on the context. There's more I want to say about this, but I'll save it for another post.
The main point I wanted to make was about the paradigms. While thinking from within a paradigm, everything makes sense and is ordered in terms of the reasoning of that school of thought. And it's important to think that your own paradigm is the best one for your situation; if you thought another one was better, why aren't you using that one? It's fair to think that each church thinks that it's right, and to think other churches should be more like them. For me personally, I'm proud and rather provincial, and I too easily look down on others. But I've come to appreciate some of the advantages of other paradigms (even when I disagree with them on many points), and I think this is a beneficial attitude to take.
Last point. In Luke 9, the disciples complain about a man who was doing good work. They tried to stop him because he wasn't one of them. Jesus basically replies that they shouldn't stop him because they're on the same team. I think this is a fair view to take. For sure, we can think our way is the best way, and that others should be more like us because it would be to their own advantage to be so - but, in the end, we're on the same team, and we're in this together.
Didn't mean for this post to be so long. We played in the snow today, it was great fun. We had Arby's on the way back, it was great delicious. I think I fixed my Asus laptop today by transferring over the hard drive from my broken HP, it was great success.
The first minute is inevitably a flurry of conversation and debate with many different competing schools of thought. Looking at the textbooks and the paper we have to hold them with, some say that what we really need is a strong base to carry as many textbooks as possible. Others say that we can build a really tall tower because the advantage in height will be worth being able to carry less books. And there's also the middle road, aiming for some combination of the two.
It always seem like other groups know exactly what they're doing, and as we realize that other groups have already begun constructing and time is running out, we hastily decide on a plan and start distributing tasks. This part is also crucial. There's too little time for one person to complete everything. So some begin to work on the base, some begin to work on the successive layers to put on top the base, and usually there's another just cutting tape for the others. The time always runs out too soon, and the time of testing begins. We hold our breath as heavy textbooks are placed on top of our paper towers, anxiously wondering if what we've built will hold up against the weight of reality.
I got thinking about this team exercise that we do for fun because I was struck recently with how similar it is to church building. There's two similarities I want to make note of.
The first is that there are many different paradigms, many different schools of thought about what will work best. Sometimes when we're building our paper towers, there ends up being no consensus about what model we're going with, and even if we had many different good plans it all ends up being useless because we didn't go with any of them. In the same way, no matter how good a plan may be, it won't work unless people actually go along with it. I think something similar goes for church. We can all have different opinions about the best way to do things, but in the end we have to go along with what's been decided otherwise nothing will work.
This isn't to say "the most important thing is that we all agree," because that isn't true either. Some paradigms clearly work better than others. Often times there's a miscalculation about just how strong the paper is, and the idea of building a really tall tower is disastrous because it ends up getting crushed by the books. Other times, the strong base approach is too conservative and there's not enough height to score a lot of points. Being unified is important, but some paradigms just work better than others.
There's a couple of ways that the analogy doesn't hold. First of all, churches aren't made out of paper. I noticed that sometimes when people point out things that are too obvious to point out like that it's humorous, so I wanted to try it. Anyway... in the paper tower exercise, everyone is given the same materials, and given the exact same objective. With churches, things can be very context specific, and the best approach will often depend on the context. There's more I want to say about this, but I'll save it for another post.
The main point I wanted to make was about the paradigms. While thinking from within a paradigm, everything makes sense and is ordered in terms of the reasoning of that school of thought. And it's important to think that your own paradigm is the best one for your situation; if you thought another one was better, why aren't you using that one? It's fair to think that each church thinks that it's right, and to think other churches should be more like them. For me personally, I'm proud and rather provincial, and I too easily look down on others. But I've come to appreciate some of the advantages of other paradigms (even when I disagree with them on many points), and I think this is a beneficial attitude to take.
Last point. In Luke 9, the disciples complain about a man who was doing good work. They tried to stop him because he wasn't one of them. Jesus basically replies that they shouldn't stop him because they're on the same team. I think this is a fair view to take. For sure, we can think our way is the best way, and that others should be more like us because it would be to their own advantage to be so - but, in the end, we're on the same team, and we're in this together.
Didn't mean for this post to be so long. We played in the snow today, it was great fun. We had Arby's on the way back, it was great delicious. I think I fixed my Asus laptop today by transferring over the hard drive from my broken HP, it was great success.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Adam Smith has seen better days
This is an excerpt from my notes on Adam Smith (author of Wealth of Nations). My notes are pretty good until here...
c. Limits to Growth
i. Smith said growth has natural limits. Every country has a limitation for how wealthy it can become.
ii. Those limits are set by location, resources, etc…
iii. This cycle of productivity is subject to diminishing returns. He calls this "the stationary state."
iv. "Stationary state" is one that who has been growing, but it's an evening out of the cultures.
v. The worse state is "the declining state." Not only has it stopped trowp…
vi. (there's natural and non-natural grss
d. "Smithian growth" is bfownrggggggggggg
A. As ple …
B. As wrilllllllllllllllllllllllltsa'tHLJ
5. … MEH…. SLEEP
6. Smiths's view of policy and the role of govt'
7. …
c. Limits to Growth
i. Smith said growth has natural limits. Every country has a limitation for how wealthy it can become.
ii. Those limits are set by location, resources, etc…
iii. This cycle of productivity is subject to diminishing returns. He calls this "the stationary state."
iv. "Stationary state" is one that who has been growing, but it's an evening out of the cultures.
v. The worse state is "the declining state." Not only has it stopped trowp…
vi. (there's natural and non-natural grss
d. "Smithian growth" is bfownrggggggggggg
A. As ple …
B. As wrilllllllllllllllllllllllltsa'tHLJ
5. … MEH…. SLEEP
6. Smiths's view of policy and the role of govt'
7. …
Though the fig tree does not bud
In 9th grade, I remember being depressed at the thought that if I missed a day of school no one would notice. I wanted the fact of whether I was there or not to make a difference. I wanted my life to amount to something. I didn't want my life to be insignificant.
I built up much of my life around performing well. I was never very ambitious, I just needed a few areas to take pride in, things to which I could point to and say this is what sets me apart from the crowd. Satisfaction in life had a lot to do with achieving goals.
I think that's why it's upsetting for me when things don't go the way I want. I'd like to be in control, and I want something to show for all my work and effort. But when things aren't going well, then I realize that all my trophies, all the things I take pride in; they're all hollow and empty. "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field" (Isaiah 40:6).
I want something to show for my work. But what will I say when things don't go my way, when I have nothing to show for what I've done? I choose to say this:
"Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior." (Habakkuk 3:17-18)
I built up much of my life around performing well. I was never very ambitious, I just needed a few areas to take pride in, things to which I could point to and say this is what sets me apart from the crowd. Satisfaction in life had a lot to do with achieving goals.
I think that's why it's upsetting for me when things don't go the way I want. I'd like to be in control, and I want something to show for all my work and effort. But when things aren't going well, then I realize that all my trophies, all the things I take pride in; they're all hollow and empty. "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field" (Isaiah 40:6).
I want something to show for my work. But what will I say when things don't go my way, when I have nothing to show for what I've done? I choose to say this:
"Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior." (Habakkuk 3:17-18)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
What am I worth?
I came to college with an HP dv1000. Trusty old thing, served me well until last semester when the motherboard died. I started using a broken Asus computer - it would randomly die on me when using Windows, but it worked with Linux. This semester I tried to get it to work on Windows again, with sporadic success.
I wanted to post one blog entry per day, so I wrote two blog entries on my Asus for future posting, but the laptop died all of a sudden on me again. So, for now, I'll have to recycle this old post from my Facebook Notes. I rather like this piece. Enjoy!
What am I worth?
The declaration of independence states that it is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Yet when I examine the world around me, this is not very self-evident to me. I am much less intelligent than many, less diligent, less charming. In many areas I also consider myself blessed; good family, good friends, good health. Using all of our standard criteria by which we judge ourselves and each other, we seem anything but equal.
But if I said that I am worth more than my neighbor because I am more athletic than him, you might feel disgusted and think that I am conceited. If I said I am worth less than my neighbor because he is better looking than me, you might feel sympathy for me and think that I value myself less than I should. This demonstrates that on an intuitive level we understand that we humans have an intrinsic worth that transcends all the criteria by which we judge one another. I have the worth of a human being, and no matter how much I strive to surpass my fellow man and increase my worth over his, we are still worth the same.
I have found all naturalistic explanation of intrinsic human worth to be unsatisfactory. Evolutionarily developed psychological mechanism for survival; tacitly understood utilitarian rule; ability to kill (Rousseau came up with this one, not me); these explanations are all lacking, for they put the impetus of equality on self-interest. If the equality of man is simply a self-interested perception, then surely this can be rejected in the spirit of Justice Kennedy, who famously declared “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” The logical consequence of following such naturalistic explanations of intrinsic human worth is optional acceptance of human equality – and I consider optional acceptance of human equality abhorrent. Only one explanation sufficiently explains transcendent worth, and that is that we are made in the made in the image of a transcendent being.
This is where my worth resides. Though I may find myself less valuable than the rest of creation, my value comes from my creator. To know that God’s love is unconditional, not contingent upon my performance in academics, sports, or even spiritual life, provides much desired comfort. I’m so thankful that God is God, and not like us – he is faithful, unchanging, and unrelenting in his pursuit of relationship with us. I find my worth in the only one truly worthy to be praised, our heavenly father in heaven.
I wanted to post one blog entry per day, so I wrote two blog entries on my Asus for future posting, but the laptop died all of a sudden on me again. So, for now, I'll have to recycle this old post from my Facebook Notes. I rather like this piece. Enjoy!
What am I worth?
The declaration of independence states that it is a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Yet when I examine the world around me, this is not very self-evident to me. I am much less intelligent than many, less diligent, less charming. In many areas I also consider myself blessed; good family, good friends, good health. Using all of our standard criteria by which we judge ourselves and each other, we seem anything but equal.
But if I said that I am worth more than my neighbor because I am more athletic than him, you might feel disgusted and think that I am conceited. If I said I am worth less than my neighbor because he is better looking than me, you might feel sympathy for me and think that I value myself less than I should. This demonstrates that on an intuitive level we understand that we humans have an intrinsic worth that transcends all the criteria by which we judge one another. I have the worth of a human being, and no matter how much I strive to surpass my fellow man and increase my worth over his, we are still worth the same.
I have found all naturalistic explanation of intrinsic human worth to be unsatisfactory. Evolutionarily developed psychological mechanism for survival; tacitly understood utilitarian rule; ability to kill (Rousseau came up with this one, not me); these explanations are all lacking, for they put the impetus of equality on self-interest. If the equality of man is simply a self-interested perception, then surely this can be rejected in the spirit of Justice Kennedy, who famously declared “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” The logical consequence of following such naturalistic explanations of intrinsic human worth is optional acceptance of human equality – and I consider optional acceptance of human equality abhorrent. Only one explanation sufficiently explains transcendent worth, and that is that we are made in the made in the image of a transcendent being.
This is where my worth resides. Though I may find myself less valuable than the rest of creation, my value comes from my creator. To know that God’s love is unconditional, not contingent upon my performance in academics, sports, or even spiritual life, provides much desired comfort. I’m so thankful that God is God, and not like us – he is faithful, unchanging, and unrelenting in his pursuit of relationship with us. I find my worth in the only one truly worthy to be praised, our heavenly father in heaven.
Monday, February 16, 2009
First Post
Hello, world!
I remember looking back in 6th grade on some of the things I did in 5th grade, and I couldn't believe how immature I was. Surely, it was a momentary lapse of judgment, or perhaps those were the deeds of a time when I was young and foolish. A time of foolishness that was behind me. So I thought, at least, until I entered 7th grade and looked back on 6th grade in much the same way.
In a similar way I expect that one day I'll look back on the words I've made public here and grimace at how foolish and wide-eyed I once was. I'll realize the words I wrote which I thought were filled with profundity are actually filled with silliness and naivety.
That's why I'm a little intimidated at the thought of starting this blog. Part of me just enjoys writing, and thinks that this will be a useful exercise. Another (more proud) part of me thinks that others may benefit from my random thoughts. That's the hope, at least, that you the reader will be able to find something worthwhile in what I write, and maybe you'll also have something wise to say in response as well!
So, stop by every once in a while and see what I've written, and leave a comment so I know who's stalking me. Just kidding! Kind of. But I do enjoy comments, even nonsensical ones.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)