Tuesday, May 22, 2012

How Can I Help?

On the heels of Sonia's powerful and impressive senior project presentation last night, I would like us to consider the difficult conflict of idealism and practicality.  As Emilie highlighted with her question for Sonia, there are limitations and challenges in the delivery of aid of any sort.

For Friday, please think carefully and write thoroughly about these questions: What should one do in the face of a genuinely needy child applying for help in the guise of an orphan?  In this case, we reach the intersection of emotion and reason, empathy and mathematics.  How do we reconcile these ways of knowing?  Is there an objective ethical answer?  In responding, please consider yourself as the knower.  What experiences and perspectives from your life contribute to your response?

For Monday, identify and examine another instance of the intersection of reason and emotion.  Consider anew how it should be handled and how you know.

22 comments:

  1. As much as it hurt to say this I believe that if a child with parents ere to come to an association that only help children without parents, they should be turned away. They do deserve aid if they truly need it but instead of going to a place that only offers support for orphans, they should seek help from another organization. We reconcile the emotions by trying to look at it in an objective manner. An orphanage is, by definition, a home for orphans, children whose parents are decease. I haven't been in a situation in which I had to decide someone's fate like that- if a child were to not pretend, they could die but I feel as though it would be taking away from someone for whom the institution were created. An experience that I can relate to this situation is when people apply to school. The schools say that financial aid is purely need based but there are often people who need aid and definitely deserve the opportunity but don't always receive what they need.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This question is a balanced battle between my natural, powerful gut instinct to help a child so desperate it will do something consciously wrong and detrimental to others in order to save itself or its family and the perfect reason that tells me this is not a sustainable behavior. Because of my own faith I think it would be wrong to turn such a child away at the door. However, reality needs to step in at some point, so it would also not be logical to try to help each child who presented himself this way, especially since this would likely cause an increase in such situations. I think the best thing would be to spend all the time and effort one can possibly afford towards helping the child find an organization or charity which was created to help him and others like him. The unethical thing would be to refuse to help; the reasonable thing would be not to give any financial or material-resource--based help; however, beyond these two barriers, I believe it is one's duty to do all one can to help.
    I don't consider this an objective answer, because my belief system, which I know is not universal, factors heavily into my response. The subjectivity of the answer will be demonstrated by the range of responses this post most likely will have by Friday. This, however, does not lessen my belief that my response is the 'right' ethical response, because I have considered my faith, which I consider to be true, and reason, which I also consider to be true, in coming up with my answer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Although it is quite unfortunate, I agree with Kate. I believe that if a child were to lie and disguise themself as an orphan, they should not recieve help from an organization strictly for orphans. I say this because currently Rwanda, and the organization itself, barely has enough funds to support the orphans, let alone other children who are poor but still have their parents. If the situation were different and the organization did have enough money to care of those children who aren't orphans, then I believe they should be helped. I agree with Anna that no child should be turned away, yet if the organization for ophans cannot help those needy children, they can at least be told to go to a different organization that specializes in helping need based children where it doesn't matter if they are orphans or not. (I would assume that there are organizations out there like that). Sadly, the child may desperately need the help, but I do not believe that lying and pretending to be in an even much worse situation deserves them any help. Accepting those kids would only encourage more and more to start pretending to be orphans in order to get help- even if some really do have the money, but they are just being greedy. To me, it depends on who needs it more. The orphan with pretty much nothing, or the child with pretty much nothing but at least have a family. Actually- I don't really know. It's really debatable because it's against morals, and what's fair/what's the rule. In this case, we reach the intersection of emotion and reason, empathy and mathematics. I agree with Kate, that we, or at least I, reconcile these ways of knowing by being somewhat objective, because there is no right or wrong answer here. Either way, there will be some kids who will face a negative impact if they are not admitted into the organization, or if they are admitted but there is just too many kids that they cannot be well supported for. There may be an objective ethical answer just because every person is different and will have a different answer. I believe that for out TOK class in particular, we would all want those children to be helped, but some may think that the child should get the help through disguising themselves, while others may feel otherwise. As the knower, an experience that contributes to my response is from the program that allowed to go to SBS. This program is called "A Better Chance", and it allows minority students from the city and nearby the opportunity to attend private schools despite the issue that they do not have enough money to go. This program works with the schools to help these students out and make it possible to attend such schools like SBS. When filling out forms, there is a high chance that some parents will lie about the money that they make so that they do not have to pay as much for their child to attend a prep school. I don't know why they do that, but my best guess would be because they do not want to spend as much money if they know that they do not have to. Sadly, the world revolves around money, and many will want to try to pay less if they don't have to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When dealing with a child who is in need but is seeking help in a “wrong” way I would try to help him/her without putting others at a disadvantage. Obviously this child is in need if it is willing to disguise them self as an orphan, but it’s taking away from others who need the help more. One has to be reasonable in this situation and think of all the other little kids who do come first because they are without parents, unlike the child. On the other hand the emotions of the person will cloud their judgments and make making a decision on what is the “right” thing to do a lot harder. The only ethical answer I can think of is trying to find a solution that would help the child, not take away from the other children (who truly do need more), and not make the child feel like he/she deserve less than the others. That would be the ideal solution. If that’s not possible there will be a very difficult situation that I wouldn’t be able to solve, unless I was involved and knew the full details. These two ways of knowing can overshadow each other when trying to make correct decisions, and it is hard having one way of knowing without the other, especially when things become personal. My personal experience in this area would be when I go shopping. If I find something I like, especially in certain stores, I get emotionally attached. The problem is that I know I shouldn’t spend any more money because I didn’t plan for it, and I should save my money for something that I actually did plan for. In the end I unfortunately go with my emotions and buy the dress, or I leave it and come back for it. When I return it’s no longer there, and I am heartbroken.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think, although, it is hard to make action, but it is necessary to change the society in some ways, for examples, to raise the global awareness of orphan in Africa, or change the government policies in Rwanda, or maybe build more organizations that help orphans in Rwanda to get attentions from both the government and the outside society. The most important of this specific issue is that we need to raise awareness to its importance and how it effect the society, because to learn more and care about the orphans, people would be able to understand their needs and prevent more disaster such as financial difficulties of a organization. In additional, to have a common sense of the issue, there will be more things that could be done to help the orphans in many ways.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This first question is really tough and I can relate it to an experience my father had. My father faced this problem when he went to translate in Haiti. Kids tried to get these free bracelets from the clinic he was translating for, although this particular child he told me about said his parents died in the earthquake but didn’t and he just wanted these bracelets they were handing out. Honestly, my father was about to give him one until someone told him the boy went to the clinic already, that day. I know that this is not the same as receiving food and shelter, but these are the little things that make children who are less fortune happy. So to answer the question, when one faces a genuinely needy child applying for help in the guise of an orphan, they should either use their own instincts or just have faith/trust that the child is telling the truth, because the child has given you no reason not to believe the child so you give them help. I feel like the intersection between emotion and reason intersect because when hearing a child’s story you will immediately want to change your decision and give them help, however being realistic, not every child will be able to receive help (which is where empathy and mathematics play a role). Mathematics relates because there are only enough resources for a certain amount of orphans, which sadly means that there might be orphans out there that aren’t accounted for. I feel like there is no objective answer, because there are man different views/ways of trying to fix major world problems, such as the high number of orphans.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If a needy child comes to an orphanage, that child should be helped in some way. Sometimes, just because a child has living parents, does not mean that everything can be provided to them. However, it could mean that some sort of aid can be given from their parents. If that is the case, then the parents of the needy child should be expected to continue to provide such things, and perhaps the orphanage can help with other things. Clearly, emotion is overpowering reason in my answer. But, there are some instances where you have to pick one or the other. For example, if a little boy named John comes up to the orphanage complaining about how he does not get to eat at home, I would not turn his pleading away because he has parents. I would help him too, as he is a person in need. If someone operated solely with reason, than there would be an objective ethical answer to this situation. The person would not give the child food because the service is for orphans, not for children that are unhappy with their home. That is pretty ethical, if you’re Spoc. As a matter of fact, you wouldn’t care if it was ethical or not if you were Spoc. Anyways, I’m only making the point that there is no objective ethical answer. Personally, I would not think too hard about whether or not to help the needy child, because my almost immediate response would be to get that child some help. There are different types of pain and all of them equal to suffering. Whether a child’s parents are dead, or a child is infected with H.I.V, or a child got a cut on his or her leg, the child is suffering. Help that results to better should always be given when it can be. I live off of help, we all do. Whether the favor is big or small, we always need help to make our way into the real world. Once I have fully grown, I know that I must turn around and help too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I believe that every child that is desperate enough to pose as an orphan in order to request help in such a manner needs help in some way, shape, or form. Although one should not accept them into an orphanage, per say, they should somehow aid the child in their quest for help. In essence, is it right to turn your back on any desperate child, orphan or not? My personal opinion is that one should be responsible in the face of desperation and therefore follow up on the issue with the child. To do this, I would assume that they would follow up on how the child is being taken care of, and notify anyone of authority if the child continues to live under desperate conditions. Although it is a sad idea that you must turn away this child in need, one should not feel guilt if they are taking the proper measures. In any case, one would have to strike the perfect balance between emotion and reason. They would have to be able to explain the reasons why the child cannot stay in the orphanage, and then be able to ease their emotion through regular visits. This issue becomes excessively complicated as more and more children begin to do the same, as one could not possibly follow up on an abundance of orphans. In this case, the person in question would need to use their best judgment, as they will not be able to help every single child. Ultimately, guilt will come into play. One could not possibly please everyone at once, and in the end the person in question will also face deep regret in some way. Whether it be because they are disappointing the child in question, or disappointing themselves in the face of such issues. I believe my response originates from the fact that I have been involved in similar situations. Since I lived in several parts of Africa, children often knocked on our doors begging for a home, or some food. Although we often invited them in for food, and possibly a bed over-night, we were not able to take in child after child. My mother often had to turn them away with whatever food she could muster. Over time, she began to follow up on certain children, and ensure they were being taken care of. But this was an incredibly difficult situation for her. Having to tell children that they had to return to a home that they were terrified of was one of the most difficult ordeals my mother had to face. In the end she just had to tell herself that she was doing the best she could. Trying to turn her back on the guilt she so thoroughly felt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Orphans are not the only one in need of help. However, if a program is designed for orphans, the program must stick to its mission. Another program can be created for underprivileged children but taking away resources from one organization to give to others, defeats the purpose of its creation. I will feel sorrow and empathy for the child but in life, people have to make tough decisions. The only reasons why there are boundaries are because there are limitations of resources. If I could financially help the child and still help the orphans, I would. To make my decision I have to come to my reasoning side, which involve math. In addition, these categories usually overcome most people’s emotions and empathy side. The objective ethical answer to question is to help the needy but not everyone can get help. People use emotions and morals to make most decisions. I know that I will feel guilty but I have to be reasonable. My experiences would actually go against my response. I would like to believe that I would be reasonable when it comes to making this decision; however, I know that I would most likely help the child. Underprivileged children always surrounded me. At some point, I was considered one. My life goal is to help those children.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Orphans in disguise is a very fragile and complex subject from where I am from. Because on one hand we have a child who has been thrown out of his home, for his family could not afford to feed him and are in extreme starvation. So, his life and future will be reduced to be a beggar on the street or luckily be accepted at the orphanage. But one the other hand, we have a child who's parents sent him out to be disguised as an orphan because they are too lazy to invest money in him and so that way it would be one less charge for the parents in terms of paying for the needs of the child, such as education and nutrition, and thus essentially saving them money but giving away their child. But in either scenario, we are dealing with extreme cases of survival, it is not as if they have the opportunity or chance at a better life. They know they will most likely live in this manner for their whole lives. But as a popular saying states "the ends justify the means", I think in both scenarios the parents' choices to send to abandon their kids is morally justifiable. I am not stating that what the parents are doing is a great thing, but they know that it is in the best interest for the children if an American orphanages takes them in. That way, the children will have a better shot at life as well as an opportunity to live better than their parents did.

    Now, as for the orphanages accepting the orphans in disguise, it is up to them to make the choice. Everyone has different levels of morality, values and significance and difference of what is right and what is wrong. As Rwandese people might think that it is completely not acceptable for a child who has both parents living with him to be disguised as an orphan, American on the other had might consider other factors that would make such a critical decision by their parents justifiable.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Personally I believe that everyone should have a chance to receive help. We are all human beings that live on this Earth. Therefore it is our duty to help one another in times of need. There are millions of people out there who are constantly struggling to make ends meet and stay alive. Then there are people like us who are considered to be the lucky ones. Issues out in the world are often a foreign concept. But we need to wake up and realize that it is very important for us to care. People who pose as orphans don't mean any harm. They are just as worthy to receive help as are real orphans. They may have a family, but they are still isolated from the world. Disguising themselves as orphans is just a desperate attempt at gaining help from others. They need food, shelter, and people who care about their lives. When they are turned away they have no where else to go but the streets. Yes the government might not have enough money but it comes down to ethics. We need to help everyone.
    I agree that it is not fair that real orphans are turned away if a fake orphan is taking up his/her spot. But why can't there be room for all kinds of displaced people. Orphans of society are just as in need.
    As the knower, I have a little bit of experience in this issue. I live in an area where a lot of community outreach takes place. If someone knocks on your door for help, someone will most likely help them. There is a plethora of organizations in the valley that strive to help all kinds of people in need of support. Whether you are sick, orphaned, or on welfare, there is some sort of help to be offered. Money should never be an issue in the case of what is right. As Sonya said, "All these people really need is to be loved, and have a hand to hold."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Another instance of the intersection of reason and emotion can be sending your child off to boarding school. For some families, having your child live away from home is not a big deal, especially if they are getting a good education out of it, but for others, the idea would be unthought of. Clearly, families want their children to have a good education and to be successful, which boarding school can better give than public school, so it would be reasonable for the child to go. Yet, for those families that would be uncomfotable with having their kids far away, it is a issue of emotion vs. reason because emotionally, they would be hurt, saddened, and even frightened at the fact that they cannot see their kids everyday, yet the reasonable thing may to be to send them away because it's a good chamce. To me, the family would just have to choose which one matters more and take a risk at either sending their child away and being sad, or keeping their child home with a potentially 'worse' education but being happy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A murderer is thrown into jail for, well, killing people. So, in order to deal with the murdered, the criminal gets the death sentence. The killer will be killed for killing. Reason would justify this act because the sentence is justified under law. Reason would also say that such a dangerous person should not live among others, because the killer puts everyone around them in danger. Emotion would say the killer should not have their life taken away,its a contradictory punishment. BUT! The fun thing about this situation is the voice of emotion and reasoning can switch. What I mean is, the voice of reasoning could say this death penalty is wrong because it is a clear contradiction. The voice of emotion could have a strong desire to kill the killer especially if we look from the eyes of poor Bob, the cousin of one of the killer's victims. It would only make sense to give the killer a taste of his/her own medicine, right?

    Wrong.The death penalty should not exist. No human has the right to take another human's life away. That isn't for us to decide. Sure, I would be beyond angry if someone that matters to me gets killed by some maniac, but even then putting them to death is not going to solve anything. To be condemned for killing someone should not mean being killed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. An instance of the intersection of reason and emotion can be when choosing a career. One can be positive of life's profession but have to overcome others opinion. A specific example is overcoming the opinion of a parent who disapproves of one’s decision. This person can have a passion for a career that does not pay well. In this case the person is emotionally unstable and might want to depend on reason to make a decision. It's either choosing their love for their parents along with a higher paying career or a career that is a passion but does not pay well. In this case one has to reason out if the career is worth losing their parents' respect or not being paid enough. Not every case is the same and people are different so there is not one decision to this situation. A higher salary might be desirable but it is not often people have the chance to fallow their passion. I have never been in this situation but I know of people who has. Based on their decisions, a higher paid salary is more reasonable and then later pursing one’s passion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I've come across the study I'm about to describe in several books I've read. (I hope it counts both as an ethical as opposed to a moral dilemma and despite its not being from personal experience.)
    The experimenters asked theology students to give a talk on various faith-related topics, including the Good Samaritan. They manipulated several variables in their attempt to test the students' willingness to stop and help an obviously suffering man/actor at the side of their path. The results: The only variable that affected the students' willingness to help was how much time they thought they had.
    I've always thought this outcome was shocking: what does this say about the steadfastness of our moral/ethical compasses? The study clearly shows that our morals are not as impervious to mundane influence as we think they are (after all, anyone who reads this probably thinks 'well I would have stopped'). However, for the sake of this assignment, I found it interesting to think about the intersection of emotion and reason. It appears that they are pretty evenly balanced, does it not? When the students had time, emotion won - they had no reason not to help, and they wanted to help. However, when reason told them it wasn't a good idea, emotion - and morality - fell by the wayside. Pun actually not intended. (Emilie.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Most humans in the 21st century can freely admit that they have seen a hand full of movies and TV shows in their lifetime. We're exposed to comedies, action films, drama, and the list goes on and on. But there is one plot that takes place in all forms of entertainment, one that we can all admit that we have seen or read several times before. There is always the situation in which there are two characters that fall in some sort of forbidden romance. Movies like TItanic, and West Side Story deal with situations in which the lovers must choose between what society wishes them to do and what their hearts tell them to do. Of course there is the typical example of Romeo and Juliet: Despite the Capulet and Montague feud the two go ahead with their love affair.
    Then there are films that get a little more complicated. One character might already be married. Should emotion be more powerful than reason?
    Even though these are works of fiction, movies, TV, and books play a major role in the culture if human society. We are always exposed to situations in which two characters must choose between what reason is considered to be in their society, or what their emotions tell them. Reason and emotion have always been at a cross roads.

    ReplyDelete
  17. An example of intersection between reason and emotion, in my opinion, is a frequent issue that a parent may experience with a child. Say the child arrives home later than the curfew that was set by his/her parents. It is often difficult for a parent to enforce rules if, for example, the child has a valid reason. This becomes a battle between reason and emotion. The reason aspect would be that the child would be punished for breaking the rules. On the other hand, emotion might intersect that reason by claiming that the child had a valid reason, or he/she wasn't "that" late. In essence, the parent might try and make and excuse for the child, since parents generally want to see the best in their kids. I believe that it should be handled with reason. Although the child had a valid excuse, whose to say the child is telling the truth? On top of that, the child should learn to be on time regardless of issues that they may face. In this case, reason gains the upper hand.

    ReplyDelete
  18. One of the first instances where reason conflicts with emotion is in the much heated debate of abortion. I have had conversations about the topic with many people. Emotionally people either hate the concept or are completely for it. A lot of people are very willing to share their opinions on the subject and display them very frequently. A famous case of this is the Supreme Court Case Roe V. Wade. Logically, there a reason to have an abortion is to prevent the baby from having a horrible, slow death- if it were determined it would be the case, though a logical reason to not have ab abortion is that after the baby is conceived, it is a live, and therefore, has a right to live. Some believe that having an abortion, though the baby would likely not survive outside of the womb in the first two trimesters, is murder and therefore should be illegal- it is illegal to kill another being. The pro-life argument is "if life occurs at conception, then anything a human being does for the express purpose of stopping it is murder" (A friend). The pro-choice would allow the woman to make the decision with the aid of her doctor. Now, I am in no way trying to force my own views upon anyone else but anew, I do realize and respect the views of those who are pro-life but at the same time, I think that abortion really needs to be looked at a case by case situation and therefore, it should be an individual choice.I know this because, from this same conversation from above, I was told conditional situations should no be included. Conditions rule everything. Whether or not something is okay, from abortion to staying out late with friends depends on the conditions. Emotion and reason are often conflicted because people have the desire to to the right thing but they don't always know how.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Another example of reason and emotion intersecting would be in an argument. In an argument there are buttons that just shouldn’t be pressed, and there are things people just shouldn’t say no matter the circumstance. This would be part of someone’s judgment and reason, but during times of arguments and disputes emotions are high. People say hurtful things because they are hurt and would like the other person to feel the same. This situation lends itself to being an intersection for these two ways of knowing because one can either use their better judgment, or they can follow where their emotion leads them and make the situation a lot tenser. Situations like this should be handled with judgment and reason because hopefully no one gets hurt too badly. Unfortunately this isn’t always the option people tend to use. Most times people follow their emotions. I know this because I do it all the time and it just makes the situation last a lot longer than it should have been.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Over the weekend, I was watching the British TV show Sherlock Holmes, and there are multiple point that SH has to make decisions, but as he is solving the case, there are people getting closer and closer to death, therefore, he needs to be clear and true to himself when he is thinking. In the second season, SH is forced to face the relationships between him and the people around him, but this time, could not stay calm and stick to the case itself, because his surrounding are forced to be involved in the case, which affect his emotion dramatically. Emotions definitely influence reasoning due to the fact that SH show how different his plans changed following the change of the situations.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The immediate idea that comes to my mind of intersection of reason and emotion is polygamy in Rwanda, as well as in many other african nations. Women are forced to live peaceful together other the same household (or sometimes, when lucky, a few miles away) with the other women that the husband has chosen to marry. This goes against some believes and religion of certain women, but since the law does not recognize polygamy as violation of rights and law, this will keep on going. The women, obviously are not above the law, and therefore are forced to coexist amongst themselves. Their emotions are well kept, hidden and collected but the reason for this, I personally think is just unjustifiable. Men, have the power of the household and nobody else is allowed to say anything, this hinders the education of women and of course slows the society down. I think it should be dealt with reinforcing marriage to only one spouse and also make polygamy a grave violation of the law. The women's emotions definitely shape their actions and behavior, but the right reasoning is the only thing that can set them free from the oppressed by husbands and society.

    ReplyDelete
  22. An instance where I found emotion and reason to cross was when you see people at stop lights begging for money who are homeless. When I was younger, I would always want to give them money however, my parents explained to me that sometimes the people who wanted money did not want the money to buy food, but cigarettes, alcohol, etc. But they also said that some people who were out there wanted the money to buy food and clothing; the ones who really needed the money. This is connected to emotion, because whenever I see someone out there who needs money to buy food or clothing, I wouldn't mind helping them out by giving them a dollar or two, but if it's someone who will buy other things there are many reasons why it is wrong to lend them money. I feel like in order to handle this situation, instead of offering the homeless person money, offer to buy them a sandwich or give them your sweater. And you will know if they are truly grateful or in need of money if they accept your offer. I've seen other adults buy meals for people instead of giving them money, and most people accept. But when they decline, that's when you know.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.