The majority of people of our generation have their eyes set on money as the ultimate goal. This survey in proof of how materialistic our society is. Almost everyone is consumed with wanting to be reach and the second most wanted accomplishment is fame. Wealth and fame are the goals for this generation and many people fail to realize that these are not what makes us happy until they are much older.
In addition to furthermore solidify that money is not the most important aspect of our lives, in a study conducted by PNAS on how income affect our lives. In the study it was concluded that “More money does not necessarily buy more happiness, but less money is associated with emotional pain ”(Kahneman & Deaton 16489+). As i mentioned before …show more content…
He was a true genius and ahead of his time. In his dialogues recorded by plato he discusses happiness extensively. Gorgias is an extensive study of virtue,temperance,justice and good vs evil. Towards the end of the dialogue, Socrates begins to speak on the meaning of life saying “Justice and temperance shall be present to him who is to be happy”(Plato 297 508a). Socrates had the idea that pleasure is not what makes us happy but rather, virtue. As he says “the happy are happy by possession of justice and temperance and the wretched are wretched by possessions of evil”(Plato 297 508 b). While being materialistic does not necessarily mean being evil, many of the values promoted in our culture revolve around selfishness. It is safe to say none of these values are promoting temperance and justice which socrates would make a person happy. It is truly amazing how what Socrates was talking about more than 2000 years ago, is backed up by researchers today, such as those mentioned above.
Peter Singer is a renowned Philosopher with many interesting ideas. He wrote “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” as an article For The New York Times in 1999. He brings up many interesting facts about the human nature. While we are quick to judge other people and deem their actions evil we are clearly ignorant towards our own actions. Singer Challenges our morality by …show more content…
Truly it is hard to know the ethical distinction between the two. We seem to not care about anything that doesn't happen exactly in front us. As long as something isn't directly affecting us we seem to not care about it. We would all bash someone for directly causing harm or not preventing it, but we all do the same indirectly. He brings up Bob who opts to save his beloved car over the life of child. In a sense bob represents the average american we all choose some unnecessary goods over the lives of others that can be saved. Millions of people over the world die from preventable diseases such as diarrhea, something that rarely causes any trouble in our lives. However, in 3rd world country even such a simple disease can be deadly. Whether or not something affects us directly should have no effect in our actions. Just because we are not observing kids around us dying that does not mean we can't do anything to stop. It is mentioned in the essay “$200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old —offering safe passage through childhood's most dangerous years”(Singer). $200 is not a significant amount for millions of americans. Many of us spend much more than that on our cars on a monthly basis. This brings up the question, that if every american decided to donate this amount how different would the world we live in
In addition to furthermore solidify that money is not the most important aspect of our lives, in a study conducted by PNAS on how income affect our lives. In the study it was concluded that “More money does not necessarily buy more happiness, but less money is associated with emotional pain ”(Kahneman & Deaton 16489+). As i mentioned before …show more content…
He was a true genius and ahead of his time. In his dialogues recorded by plato he discusses happiness extensively. Gorgias is an extensive study of virtue,temperance,justice and good vs evil. Towards the end of the dialogue, Socrates begins to speak on the meaning of life saying “Justice and temperance shall be present to him who is to be happy”(Plato 297 508a). Socrates had the idea that pleasure is not what makes us happy but rather, virtue. As he says “the happy are happy by possession of justice and temperance and the wretched are wretched by possessions of evil”(Plato 297 508 b). While being materialistic does not necessarily mean being evil, many of the values promoted in our culture revolve around selfishness. It is safe to say none of these values are promoting temperance and justice which socrates would make a person happy. It is truly amazing how what Socrates was talking about more than 2000 years ago, is backed up by researchers today, such as those mentioned above.
Peter Singer is a renowned Philosopher with many interesting ideas. He wrote “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” as an article For The New York Times in 1999. He brings up many interesting facts about the human nature. While we are quick to judge other people and deem their actions evil we are clearly ignorant towards our own actions. Singer Challenges our morality by …show more content…
Truly it is hard to know the ethical distinction between the two. We seem to not care about anything that doesn't happen exactly in front us. As long as something isn't directly affecting us we seem to not care about it. We would all bash someone for directly causing harm or not preventing it, but we all do the same indirectly. He brings up Bob who opts to save his beloved car over the life of child. In a sense bob represents the average american we all choose some unnecessary goods over the lives of others that can be saved. Millions of people over the world die from preventable diseases such as diarrhea, something that rarely causes any trouble in our lives. However, in 3rd world country even such a simple disease can be deadly. Whether or not something affects us directly should have no effect in our actions. Just because we are not observing kids around us dying that does not mean we can't do anything to stop. It is mentioned in the essay “$200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old —offering safe passage through childhood's most dangerous years”(Singer). $200 is not a significant amount for millions of americans. Many of us spend much more than that on our cars on a monthly basis. This brings up the question, that if every american decided to donate this amount how different would the world we live in