To Give or Not to Give, There is No Question: Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

Even the most fortunate among us are no strangers to misery. In “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, Peter Singer sings an empathic ditty, throwing down the gauntlet for anyone better off than the worst off to give, and to keep giving till it (almost) hurts. While he uses the 1971 East Bengal famine as his ‘call to arms’, his arguments can be extended to any form of desperate need such as disaster-relief, extreme poverty, or any number of the miserable conditions afflicting our fellow men. His clarion call may sound a little too shrill for most in 1972 to stomach, but his arguments remain unfortunately relevant today, perhaps even more so, considering the desperation of refugees fleeing terrible conditions only to face unwelcoming host countries and the increased tempo of natural disasters such as tsunamis, earthquakes and volcano eruptions afflicting first and third world nations alike.

Of Bats and Men: What Does Subjectivity Mean for the Study of Consciousness?

 How does the mind relate to the body, given that the mind is mental while the body is physical? What is the connection between mental and physical properties?[1] In his article “What is it Like to be a Bat?”, Thomas Nagel makes clear from the first sentence that his aim is to address the mind-body problem with a focus on the mind part of the problem: “Consciousness is what makes the mind-body problem really intractable.”[2] The human body, as a physical entity, is arguably easier to understand than that of the mind. Biology is a well-established science, with a firm grasp on the functioning of the body down to the cellular and molecular level (i.e. DNA), while our understanding of the mental phenomena of the mind is by contrast still in its adolescent phase, studied in a series of fledgling disciplines such as cognitive science, neurology and psychology.

The Nature of the Atman

What is the nature of reality, according to Indian philosophy? To answer this question, I turned to the Upanisads, which is considered the source of Indian philosophies and religions. According to Radhakrishnan, the aim of the Upanisads is “not so much to reach philosophical truth as to bring peace and freedom to the anxious human spirit [...] express[ing] the restlessness and striving of the human mind to grasp the true nature of reality.”[1] To investigate the nature of reality, the Upanisads philosophically analyse the nature of the self or Atman in Sanskrit, which means breath or vital essence in the Rg Veda. It could also be understood as the Self, with a capital S – the ultimate and true Self, or Soul.[2]

Man's Need for Freedom, Individuality and Agency

The core of our humanity lies at the intersection of our freedom, individuality and agency. The first section of this essay examines human freedom by studying Mill’s On Liberty and Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. The second section examines individuality and agency using both texts and Kierkegaard’s Either/Or, II.

Mill examines the freedom of man in relation first to the tyranny of rulers and then society, arriving at three liberties he considers necessary for a truly free society. Kant’s moral law, the categorical imperative, complements the freedom Mill envisions. It is not derived from nature, society or god but from reason, which allows man the freedom to act morally, though as rational beings, they may seem to only be able to choose the ‘right’ path. With freedom as the foundation, man can then pursue his individuality and exercise his agency. Mill argues that freedom comes with responsibility and argues for diversity in people’s ways of life, while Kierkegaard’s ethical man exercises his agency through making choices and taking responsibilities. The Kantian notion of duty is criticised by Kierkegaard, though both will agree that we need to internalise our morality. Mill asserts that human individuality, when free to manifest, is not antagonistic to society but elevates it.

Is There Hope for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim?

Immanuel Kant in his essay “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim” presents nine intriguing propositions on how a philosophical history of man can be achieved. All animals have a purpose, and man’s purpose is to use his reason. We struggle to live with ourselves and with others in a society, but society is the means by which humanity can reach its fullest potential. Extending his idea of a society of men to a society of nations, such a federation of states will ultimately lead to a universal cosmopolitan condition, though setbacks are inevitable. This is the universal world history Kant envisions, which is according to a “plan of nature that aims at the perfect civil union of the human species.” However, when he published this essay in 1784, he could not have foreseen the twin threats of climate change and nuclear apocalypse that might drive mankind to extinction if we are not careful. Frightening as they are, these threats could be the opportunity we need to finally unite as one species, to overcome our joint difficulties and reach the cosmopolitan aim Kant dreams of.[1]

Does Everything Have a Reason?

Do you agree that everything has a reason? That there are no brute, unexplainable facts? Then you believe in the Principle of Sufficient Reason or PSR.