In my opinion, rb>c is not a good explanation of goodness. I personally feel that humans have the capcity of doing good without conditions. Humans can do good without wanting anything back or calculating the benefits and losses of doing good. I believe that somethings in this world just cannot be explained with science. Some things are just beyond science.
Other reasons for doing good in this world may lie within us. This is our conscience. If we were to see someone dying, we would definitely help them. We cannot allow ourselves to leave him dying, eventhough I know there are some exceptions like Hitler and some Japanese WWII soldiers. Some may argue that conscience is psychological and can be exlained with science. However, what I am trying to say is that rb>c still does not work in this case.
My reason for doing good lies in my religion. People have beliefs and principles that are adopted from their religion. I can safely say that all religion promotes goodness. My religion teaches me to do good, and it is an obligation to do good.
The reasons are above are alternatives to the rb>c. Not everything needs to be calculated.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Comment on rb > c
In my opinion, the "equation" - which is not really an equation because it is an equality - makes complete sense. Generally, people would do good only because they want something good in return. This repayment can be made in any form: money, deed, land, toys, anything. This would be very logical and sensical. However, this idea assumes the worst out of humans or animals. It is saying that we would never do good just for the sake of goodness.
I know of someone, an elderly. She lives a simple life, dresses like a normal middle income lady, speaks like a normal middle income lady, and lives like a normal middle class lady. However, she has an extraordinary heart. I have heard many stories of her helping other people. She has given so much money to others. Almost everytime I went to her house she would give me ten dollars.
It is very sad to hear about some people that she had lent money to forgetting about her deeds. Some even ask for more money, with the claim that they need the money to support his family. However, many a times I hear that the person was not supporting his family but instead spent the money on gambling and beers. However, the generous lady still helped this man. She has never asked for her money back. This is strange. She does good but does not expect good. She does good when the cost of doing goodness is more than the deed itself.
Therefore, I disagree with the rb > c. It just does not fit with my principles, and my belief of human nature.
I know of someone, an elderly. She lives a simple life, dresses like a normal middle income lady, speaks like a normal middle income lady, and lives like a normal middle class lady. However, she has an extraordinary heart. I have heard many stories of her helping other people. She has given so much money to others. Almost everytime I went to her house she would give me ten dollars.
It is very sad to hear about some people that she had lent money to forgetting about her deeds. Some even ask for more money, with the claim that they need the money to support his family. However, many a times I hear that the person was not supporting his family but instead spent the money on gambling and beers. However, the generous lady still helped this man. She has never asked for her money back. This is strange. She does good but does not expect good. She does good when the cost of doing goodness is more than the deed itself.
Therefore, I disagree with the rb > c. It just does not fit with my principles, and my belief of human nature.
Response on The Evolution of Goodness
Goodness has always been an area of interest of scientists. They have always wondered why people do good to others. They have always wondered why even some animals do good to others. This has always puzzled scientists.
Darwin himself came up with theories of evolution of goodness. Other biologists too tried to explain it. They came up with the theory rb > c. This simply means how related one is to another and how one can benefit from the other needs to be more than the costs in order for one to do good. However, this theory does not seem to fit with the idea of reciprocity.
Reciprocity is the idea in which one does good with the expectation that good will be done unto himself too. It basically means "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". This idea does not fit with the "math thing" above as in this case, good is done with the benefit and relativity less than the cost.
In my opinion, goodness cannot be explained purely scientifically. Some people argue that goodness is a human thing. However, how would they be able to explain goodness among animals. I believe that goodness has some religious or spiritual connections. I believe we do good as we are good. We are not expecting something. I have seen people who do good just in the name of goodness. They do not expect any thing back.
Darwin himself came up with theories of evolution of goodness. Other biologists too tried to explain it. They came up with the theory rb > c. This simply means how related one is to another and how one can benefit from the other needs to be more than the costs in order for one to do good. However, this theory does not seem to fit with the idea of reciprocity.
Reciprocity is the idea in which one does good with the expectation that good will be done unto himself too. It basically means "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". This idea does not fit with the "math thing" above as in this case, good is done with the benefit and relativity less than the cost.
In my opinion, goodness cannot be explained purely scientifically. Some people argue that goodness is a human thing. However, how would they be able to explain goodness among animals. I believe that goodness has some religious or spiritual connections. I believe we do good as we are good. We are not expecting something. I have seen people who do good just in the name of goodness. They do not expect any thing back.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Deaf to the world...
Cell phones and music players are killing us. They increase the risks of accidents. This is especially worrying as many youths are very active users of cell phones and music players, even when crossing the road. Youngsters absorbed in their cell phones or music players face greater risk of accidents as they are distracted. What is even more worrying is the fact that these youths have a very indifferent attitude towards this, and are willing to risk themselves getting into accidents as they do not want to feel bored. Some even feel that accidents are not caused by these devices, but instead the fault of drivers.
Youths are always using their cell phones or music players wherever they go. It is as if they cannot live without them. They are always absorbed with their cell phones and music players, which is dangerous as they are not aware of the dangers around them. However, these do not stop youths at all from not using them. “Sometimes I can’t hear bicycles coming from behind me but I don’t think it’s dangerous. I’d be bored without my iPod,” said 25 year old Esni Abimanju.
This is dangerous and increases the risks of accidents. President of the National Safety Council of Singapore even said “plugging into music will certainly increase the risk of accidents”. He went on to say that it is because our attention will be distracted. As you can see, cell phones and music players increase the risks of accidents. Our reaction time is reduced by 35 percent when we send messages while driving. An experiment conducted by the Sunday Times found that out of 30 pedestrians sending messages, five bumped into reporters while six dodged them only at the last minute and out of 30 pedestrians who were listening to music, 12 failed to hear the bicycle bell and did not get out of the way when reporters cycled past them. Furthermore, these pedestrians were unconcerned and unapologetic. As seen from the statistics above, it is clear enough that people who are absorbed with their cell phones and music players are in great risk of getting into an accident. Imagine if the above pedestrians were absorbed with their devices when crossing the road and are not aware of an oncoming car. The outcome would be disastrous.
However, I am aware that some of you, especially youths, would like to rebut my argument and say that it is not your fault if you were to get into an accident. Polytechnic student Seah Jia Hao said that if he cannot hear a car coming, it is the driver’s responsibility to look out for him because he is in front of him. Even if what he said was true, I would like to just say why risk getting into an accident? If you make out of it alive then it is not so bad, but what if you don’t?
Some of you might even argue and say that you will feel bored without using your cell phones or music players. Miss Farhana said that she knows that listening to music at high volume is dangerous but she will not stop listening at high volume because it just sets the mood. As I have said before, why risk yourself getting into an accident? Personally, I value my life more than music. I am sure that many others would share the same view as me.
Thus I would like to just end by saying that it is clear that youths, or more generally people, who are absorbed in their cell phones or music players face a greater risk of accidents on the road. There are many statistics to prove my point. These devices are meant to help us, not be detrimental for us. We can use them, but do not use them too much or carelessly especially on the road. If you do, you might just end up on the obituary section of the daily news paper.
Youths are always using their cell phones or music players wherever they go. It is as if they cannot live without them. They are always absorbed with their cell phones and music players, which is dangerous as they are not aware of the dangers around them. However, these do not stop youths at all from not using them. “Sometimes I can’t hear bicycles coming from behind me but I don’t think it’s dangerous. I’d be bored without my iPod,” said 25 year old Esni Abimanju.
This is dangerous and increases the risks of accidents. President of the National Safety Council of Singapore even said “plugging into music will certainly increase the risk of accidents”. He went on to say that it is because our attention will be distracted. As you can see, cell phones and music players increase the risks of accidents. Our reaction time is reduced by 35 percent when we send messages while driving. An experiment conducted by the Sunday Times found that out of 30 pedestrians sending messages, five bumped into reporters while six dodged them only at the last minute and out of 30 pedestrians who were listening to music, 12 failed to hear the bicycle bell and did not get out of the way when reporters cycled past them. Furthermore, these pedestrians were unconcerned and unapologetic. As seen from the statistics above, it is clear enough that people who are absorbed with their cell phones and music players are in great risk of getting into an accident. Imagine if the above pedestrians were absorbed with their devices when crossing the road and are not aware of an oncoming car. The outcome would be disastrous.
However, I am aware that some of you, especially youths, would like to rebut my argument and say that it is not your fault if you were to get into an accident. Polytechnic student Seah Jia Hao said that if he cannot hear a car coming, it is the driver’s responsibility to look out for him because he is in front of him. Even if what he said was true, I would like to just say why risk getting into an accident? If you make out of it alive then it is not so bad, but what if you don’t?
Some of you might even argue and say that you will feel bored without using your cell phones or music players. Miss Farhana said that she knows that listening to music at high volume is dangerous but she will not stop listening at high volume because it just sets the mood. As I have said before, why risk yourself getting into an accident? Personally, I value my life more than music. I am sure that many others would share the same view as me.
Thus I would like to just end by saying that it is clear that youths, or more generally people, who are absorbed in their cell phones or music players face a greater risk of accidents on the road. There are many statistics to prove my point. These devices are meant to help us, not be detrimental for us. We can use them, but do not use them too much or carelessly especially on the road. If you do, you might just end up on the obituary section of the daily news paper.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Streaking - Introduction
NUDE WOMAN RUNNING ON THE STREET! This would be considered a heavenly sight by most hot-blooded boys. This act of running nude is called streaking. However, streaking is not supposed to be for sexual purposes. This streaking culture has been inculcated in some overseas colleges. There has been a long-running debate on whether it should be allowed or not. Those for streaking argued that streaking is just for the fun of it, and is not meant to sexually intimidate other people. Those against streaking however argued that we live in a society and that the sight of nude people running in public is not acceptable. I personally though feel that it should not be allowed. We are an Asian society and we have always had a culture of never ever exposing private parts to the public. Streaking also is an indecent act and may be even an immoral one.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
English - Should streaking be allowed?
Streaking is the act of running naked in a public place, non-sexually that is. Many people have been debating on whether or not it should be allowed. This is especially so since the "4am Streakers of NUS" incident. People have been debating on whether or not the punishment given was too harsh. Some say it was unfair, while others say it just the right punishment. I, personally, feel that it should not be allowed.
First of all, we are an Asian society. We have always been known as a bit more conservative than the West, but this is not necessarily negative. This is positive. We have this golden unwritten law that no matter what, we should never ever compromise our dignity. Think of it as this way, if a fat man were to run naked in front of you while you were eating at the canteen, you will lose your appetite. Not only that, the fat man will also lose his dignity and worse still, if people were to make fun of his manhood he will never be able to face the public ever again. However, on a more serious note, the act of never ever revealing our "precious little things" is our culture, an Asian culture. If we were to unshamely streak, we will lose that culture. Our culture is our identity. Why should we follow the West?
My second point is that we should never incalculate this culture into our youths. Imagine if streaking was allowed. Imagine in the future, you were at your daughter's school for her graduation, and suddenly saw her running naked up the stage as a prank. How would you feel? The act of streaking is common in the West. It can be seen in places such as at UCLA where students take part in the Undie Run. Being "open" is not always good. It can also mean being shameless. Take a look at the Western culture which promotes a lot of "open" acts. Look at the majority of the youths, and you will see that they do not really care about what people think of them. They engage in shameful acts and are proud of it. I am not saying all of the Westerners are, I am just saying a lot of them are.
In conclusion, I just want to say that streaking should not be allowed, mainly because of personal pride and dignity. Self-respect is very important. It is what determines your place in society. Being conservative, but not over conservative, is our culture our identity. Please do not lose it.
First of all, we are an Asian society. We have always been known as a bit more conservative than the West, but this is not necessarily negative. This is positive. We have this golden unwritten law that no matter what, we should never ever compromise our dignity. Think of it as this way, if a fat man were to run naked in front of you while you were eating at the canteen, you will lose your appetite. Not only that, the fat man will also lose his dignity and worse still, if people were to make fun of his manhood he will never be able to face the public ever again. However, on a more serious note, the act of never ever revealing our "precious little things" is our culture, an Asian culture. If we were to unshamely streak, we will lose that culture. Our culture is our identity. Why should we follow the West?
My second point is that we should never incalculate this culture into our youths. Imagine if streaking was allowed. Imagine in the future, you were at your daughter's school for her graduation, and suddenly saw her running naked up the stage as a prank. How would you feel? The act of streaking is common in the West. It can be seen in places such as at UCLA where students take part in the Undie Run. Being "open" is not always good. It can also mean being shameless. Take a look at the Western culture which promotes a lot of "open" acts. Look at the majority of the youths, and you will see that they do not really care about what people think of them. They engage in shameful acts and are proud of it. I am not saying all of the Westerners are, I am just saying a lot of them are.
In conclusion, I just want to say that streaking should not be allowed, mainly because of personal pride and dignity. Self-respect is very important. It is what determines your place in society. Being conservative, but not over conservative, is our culture our identity. Please do not lose it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)