GpAdmin – Page 2

The world today has diluted the concept of good and bad. Discuss.

I. Introduction

Hook: In an era marked by rapid social change and technological advancement, traditional notions of good and bad are often questioned.
Background: Overview of how moral and ethical standards have evolved over time, particularly in the context of globalization and digital media.
Thesis Statement: In the contemporary world, the concepts of good and bad have become increasingly diluted due to cultural relativism and media influence, yet some argue that these changes reflect a more nuanced understanding of morality and ethical complexity.

II. Supporting View 1: Cultural Relativism

Topic Sentence: The rise of cultural relativism has led to a dilution of universal moral standards.
Example 1: The varying attitudes towards practices such as arranged marriages or corporal punishment across different cultures, which challenge the idea of a single moral truth.
Example 2: The global debate on LGBTQ+ rights, where acceptance and legality vary widely, demonstrating conflicting views on what is considered “good” or “bad.”
Analysis: Discuss how these examples illustrate the impact of cultural relativism on diluting clear-cut moral judgments.

III. Supporting View 2: Media Influence

Topic Sentence: Media influence has contributed to the blurring of the lines between good and bad.
Example 1: The portrayal of anti-heroes in popular TV shows and movies, like Walter White in “Breaking Bad,” which complicates the audience’s sense of morality.
Example 2: The spread of misinformation and fake news through social media platforms, making it difficult to discern truth from falsehood and good intentions from bad.
Analysis: Examine how media representations and the digital information landscape have complicated traditional moral categories.

IV. Opposing View 1: Nuanced Understanding of Morality

Topic Sentence: The perceived dilution of good and bad reflects a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of morality.
Example 1: The increasing recognition of mental health issues, leading to more compassionate responses to behaviors previously judged harshly, such as addiction or crime.
Example 2: The rise of restorative justice practices, which focus on rehabilitation and reconciliation rather than punishment, promoting a more complex view of justice.
Analysis: Discuss how these developments indicate a shift towards a more sophisticated and empathetic approach to moral judgments.

V. Opposing View 2: Ethical Complexity in Globalization

Topic Sentence: Globalization has introduced ethical complexities that necessitate a reevaluation of good and bad.
Example 1: The ethical dilemmas surrounding global trade practices, such as the use of sweatshops or exploitation of labor in developing countries.
Example 2: The environmental impact of technological advancements, where progress and innovation often come at the cost of ecological harm, creating complex moral decisions.
Analysis: Explore how these global issues require a more detailed consideration of ethics, challenging simplistic notions of good and bad.

VI. Conclusion

Restate Thesis: While it appears that the concepts of good and bad have become diluted in today’s world due to cultural relativism and media influence, this can also be seen as a progression towards a more nuanced and complex understanding of morality.
Summary of Key Points: Recap the main supporting and opposing views discussed.
Final Thought: Emphasize the importance of continuous dialogue and critical thinking in navigating moral and ethical challenges in the contemporary world.

‘You cannot have rich countries without poor ones.’ Do you agree?

It is almost a characteristic of modern society that when progress takes place, a myriad of issues with regard to the purpose, the means as well as the implications of that progress will emerge. Consequently, the issue of inequality, as a result of disproportionate development among countries arises. Those countries with abundant financial resources due to such development are considered rich countries. However, nations that lose out in such unfair disproportionate development are known as poor countries. Considering such definitions of rich and poor countries, the presence of inequality among nations will undoubtedly result in the coexistence between rich and poor countries. However, it is apparent that one of the United Nations (UN) Millennia goals is to eradicate extreme poverty. In other words, the UN wants to reduce the number of countries considered poor. Will such a situation result in the deterioration of the conditions of developed countries? It is in my opinion that rich countries will continue to exist, and even progress, and are not dependent on poor countries. This is due to reasons such as technological advancements, the change in the focus concerning the growth of certain industries and an increase in the demand for higher quality goods.

Rich countries have been highly dependent on poor countries in many ways. One of which is the dependence on poor countries for their labour so as to ensure the development of rich countries. Cheap labour is commonly found in poor countries due to the fact that the majority of citizens of those countries have low standards of living, quality of life and cost of living, thus allowing them to accept lower salaries. The rich countries exploit this comparative advantage as they attempt to expand and diversify their economy via outsourcing and ensure that their products remain cheap on the global stage, tapping on the benefits of globalisation and consequently, interdependence among countries. Nike, an American shoe company, opened various factories in poor countries such as Vietnam and China due to the presence of cheap labour to the extent that the labourers were acrimoniously exploited. Initially, Nike had a factory in South Korea. However, as it evolved from a poor country into a rich one, Nike had no incentive in continuing its processes in South Korea as the cost of labour rose; this American company was not dependent on South Korea anymore. As companies in rich countries continue to ensure that their products remain competitive, they will constantly be dependent on poor countries for their labour force.

Other than that, rich countries are dependent on poor countries for numerous necessities. More often than not, majority of the citizens in poor countries engage themselves in primary industries which include farming and the extraction of natural resources such as oil and precious metals. As countries develop into rich countries, their focus swerves towards the expansion of the secondary and tertiary industries such as services, processing and manufacturing industries since they include sectors which are highly profitable. Consequently, it can be inferred that as more poor countries progress out of the poverty cycle, there will be fewer areas throughout the world in which there will be farming activities and the extraction of vital resources such as oil and aluminium. Will there be a situation in which there will be a shortage of rice and meat due to the decrease in agricultural activities caused by development? If such a case was to occur, we, as part of the global society, will experience detrimental effects such as exponential increases in hunger related diseases and malnutrition. Today, a child dies from malnutrition or hunger-related diseases every 5 seconds; tomorrow, the situation may be worse. Countries such as Singapore, which have negligible natural resources, will be the worst hit. Despite being rich, they will not be able to sustain their growth as they are in no way self-sufficient from the food and natural resources perspectives. In that sense, rich countries may not be able to survive without poor countries.

However, if the world was to be in a situation in which there was the absence of poor countries, I am certain that rich countries will still exist and even continue to prosper. One of the prominent aims of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is to eradicate extreme poverty by 2015. Extreme poverty occurs when an individual survives on less than US$2.15 a day. Technically, if there was a moment in time in which no individual was considered poor, there would be no poor country as individuals are the building blocks of a country. As such, the UNDP envisions a world without any poor countries; this is, apparently, for the betterment of society at large.

The fact that countries develop means that there will be technological advancements and a shift in focus towards the growth of certain industries. Consequently, we would expect farming activities to decreases tremendously alongside the evolution of countries into developed, rich ones. However, this may not be the case. Applying technology in farming regions has led to an increase in the production of foodstuffs, as well as a more uniform quality of food. This has allowed the farmers in the United States of America (USA) to be among the most productive in the world. With just 0.3 per cent of the world’s agricultural workforce, the USA produces around 45 per cent of all soybeans, 40 per cent of all maize, 22 per cent of all beef, 25 per cent of all poultry meat and supplies up to half of the world’s grain exports. Thus, it is observed that the productivity, and hence profitability of primary industries, can be increased with the usage of modern technology; such technology can only be considered affordable if countries are not poor. We also realise that our basic necessities can still be met without the presence of poor countries. Thus, rich countries may still exist without poor countries and are not dependent on poor countries.

Furthermore, economically, rich countries will prosper. As countries develop, people will demand better quality and a larger variety of goods and services. As such, the centre of attention of companies will change based on consumer trends. Many companies today have developed their research and development sects to ensure the competitiveness of their products. Specialised, skilled workers will be required for the sustenance of such jobs; such workers can mostly be found in rich, developed countries in which the majority of their populations are educated. Today, our society does not demand as many bicycles as before; we demand more motorised vehicles such as cars and motorcycles. This was especially observed in China as the number of vehicles purchased increased alongside the development of their economy. Thus, rich countries will prosper due to the increasing demand for skilled labour, based on changing trends of consumption, internationally that is caused by the basic principle of interdependence amongst countries.

Besides that, as poor countries move out of the causation cycle, the price of products will increase due to the increase in the cost of labour and consequently, cost of production. However, citizens of rich countries will still be able to afford such goods and services due to their high disposable incomes. Thus, it is almost impossible to imagine a time in which rich people in rich countries cannot afford their basic necessities due to their high prices. Today itself, such people demand expensive, luxurious items such as branded clothes and quality food. As such, although rich countries may suffer financially due to the increase in the cost of living, they will never fall due to such a problem.

In conclusion, rich countries will exist despite the absence of poor countries. Undeniably, rich countries are highly dependent on poor countries, mainly because of globalisation. However, rich countries will still exist due to the fact that their basic necessities will be met and that their high Gross Domestic Product will still be sufficient for their development. As such, rich countries should not be reluctant to assist in the development of poor countries into rich ones. Such an action may be detrimental to rich countries in the short term; nevertheless, abundant advantages such as increased productivity due to improvements and increased access to technology will be experienced in the long term. Thus, we should work towards the development of our international society for the benefit of the future of civilisation.

Can beliefs affect our ability to reason?

Philosophers throughout history have attempted to explain concepts and divine processes. In achieving this they have always applied reason and logical explanation. Any explanation that seemed illogical or unreal was questioned. However, there has been a constant struggle between belief and reason. Beliefs are ideas that are based on religious, moral and political faiths. Beliefs affect the ability to reason because beliefs cannot be easily changed, they are facts for people and they create boundaries that hinder reasoning.

Belief can hinder reasoning because once they are accepted, they imperceptibly become facts. Belief immediately gets accepted as reality and further questioning or inquiry becomes difficult. For example, Galileo Galilei faced backlash and imprisonment because his theory was against the belief of the church that the earth is the centre of the universe. The idea can also be seen in how many religious groups are against stem cell research because these groups consider stem cell manipulation equivalent to playing god. Therefore, beliefs once ingrained are treated as confirmed facts and become resistant to suggestions and challenge. Hence, belief and reason are not compatible as belief becomes grounds for unproven facts.

Beliefs define an individual’s personal sense of reality and knowledge. Human beings have a belief system and through this mechanism, they individually, “make sense” of the world around them Humans need belief systems in varying degrees to cope with events in their lives. For example, religion may fill the human need for finding meaning and not thinking about the existential angst while supporting social movements. Everyone has opinions, biases, and feelings that shape their own beliefs. Based on these factors, people form their opinions which may lead to improper reasoning. However, reason and beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Atheists use reasoning to believe that God does not exist. Some religious faiths believe that their way is the only way to salvation. Therefore, beliefs shape our opinions and we stick to our beliefs which eventually affects our reasoning.

Political beliefs are also hard to change because they can be hard-wired into our brain. Political beliefs might affect the ability to think logically because people do not wish to see things from another perspective. People with strong political beliefs use arguments that support their personal viewpoint. For example, a debate in the United States ensued about spending a significant portion of the budget on national defence but in a subsequent survey when participants were asked if military funding should be reduced, the respondents disagreed according to their political beliefs. It is evident that people immediately reject ideas that even slightly threaten their beliefs as it is considered as a direct attack on their identities. Therefore, beliefs do diminish our ability to reason because strong beliefs act as facts for people.

There are religious beliefs that place little to no boundaries on reasoning. Taoism and Paganism place few constraints over rational thinking. These religious belief systems, allow individuals to explore and develop your own path and ability to reason. Therefore, we can say that belief does not always hinder our ability to reason. However, the majority of religious beliefs create boundaries that hinder reasoning. These beliefs that have no basis in fact or proof cause the greatest distortion of perception. For example, religious beliefs rooted in Abrahamic religions or religions of Semitic origin like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have many restrictions and boundaries. Strong religious beliefs reject facts and ideas that conflict with their boundaries. For example, Sharia laws demand the death penalty for issues like the abandonment of religious beliefs and blasphemy. Therefore, not all religions are created equally and many religious beliefs do hamper our ability to reason.

In conclusion, it can be said that belief does have the ability to affect reason. Beliefs cannot be easily changed and some beliefs also need reasoning. In most cases, though we stick to our rational or irrational beliefs whether religious, ideological or political which eventually affects our reasoning. Science has the potential to change beliefs, but its ultimate impact is contingent upon how literate, liberal and lucid people are.

The danger of modern science is that instead of teaching mankind humility, it has made us arrogant. Discuss.

Many have started to believe that scientific knowledge is turning people arrogant to the extent that people think that the gods themselves. Agreeing with this view, it can be said that modern science is making people arrogant as is evident from various experiments like the ability to control humans, genome editing and taking decisions that can affect all life on the earth.

Scientists have continuously strived to unravel the mysteries of the universe and explain various factors. For example, recently, NASA discovered that there is a constant humming sound heard underneath the surface of Mars. This Martian hum is just one in a slew of fresh mysteries and discoveries detected by scientists in recent years. The explanation regarding planetary collisions, asteroids destroying earth have all made humans realise that earth is just a speck of blue dust in the larger scheme of the universe. This scientific knowledge is enough to humble us and fear the multitude of the unknown phenomenon. Thus, it can be said that the sheer knowledge that our struggles are insignificant in the vast universe shows that science has the power to make us humble instead of arrogant.

However, in today’s world, man has started to ignore the basic tenets of science. Science it seems has made people so powerful that they have the power to save or destroy lives. This very fact has boosted the arrogance of people today.

Genetic engineering is another example where people display arrogance and try to play god. While in the earlier times, breaking rules were necessary to bring forth better theories concerning our existence, in recent times, scientists and doctors are taking science to the extreme and breaking rules in an unethical manner. A recent example of this can be the Chinese scientist He Jiankui who used gene-editing to provide HIV-resistance to twin babies. The act raised many ethical questions as any discrepancies in the genes will be passed on for generations. Moreover, with the benefits of CRISPR technology becoming apparent, many, bioethicists warned that the technology should not be used in healthy human embryos until doctors are sure about the consequences. Even after the warnings, the scientists have not stopped using the technology in some capacity. In the wise words of Jean Rostand, a French biologist and philosopher: “Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being a man.” Thus, science has made people more arrogant than humble because it has given scientists immense power in hand.

Science has not only given humans the power to control human lives but has extended the power to control other species. This is evident from the fact that scientists use animals for medical testing in brutal ways. An example of this was seen in 2019, when a research laboratory in Hamburg, subjected monkeys to “barbaric” treatment and kept dogs in squalid conditions. Furthermore, pets today are cloned and is a booming industry. Pet cloning industries often tout this as a service that brings dead pets back to their owners. Scientists today are also experimenting with genes of animals. An example of this can be seen, in China where scientists claimed that gene editing was used to produce customized dogs with double muscles. Similarly, many animals have been injected with genes that allow them to glow in the dark, just for selfish reasons. It is evident that modern science is being used arrogantly by mankind without realising the fact that these interventions can affect the ecosystems. Therefore, modern science has made people more arrogant.

In conclusion, though science has made us aware of the limited knowledge about the universe, modern science poses serious threats to people’s humility. Today, people are becoming extremely arrogant and playing god in many instances. If the behaviour is not reigned in then the effects can be catastrophic and disastrous.

Are machines making humans obsolete?

In the future, it is expected that most of the jobs held by humans today will be replaced by automated technologies like robots and AI. However, this contention has been argued by those who believe that automation has a long way to go in replacing humans. This is because the automated machinery lacks human functions like cognition and critical thinking skills. While some areas of work in the future will completely be dominated by machines, humans that are not technologically savvy would be obsolete.

The belief that humans will be made obsolete by machines stems from the fact that today many jobs are being automated. This includes jobs in factories where humans have been replaced by automated machinery on assembly lines. Similarly, customer service and sales jobs today are increasingly being automated by the means of chatbots, automated emails and calls. Automated machinery can do these tasks better than humans and with little human errors. We have to acknowledge that only jobs that are repetitive and require a significant amount of data to make quick decisions would replace humans, but robots and automated systems would still require technicians and engineers to maintain these systems. Hence the aspect of obsolences is a selective one.

It can also be contended that instead of making humans obsolete, the machines can be instrumental in helping humans to do tasks easily and efficiently. Machines instead of replacing humans can work alongside them. An example of this can be drones being used for surveillance by the US Army or bomb disposal robots that can analyse suspicious areas or devices without endangering the lives of people. It can be said that machines can be very helpful in assisting humans in other areas like health care, transportation and agriculture. However, they cannot make humans obsolete because people are required to operate these machines.

Machines cannot replace humans in specialist jobs which require cognitive skills and empathy. Many companies today and even in the future would need specialists like engineers, doctors, teachers and nannies. Teachers and nurses would still be needed in education and healthcare systems because unlike machines they can better understand human emotions. Similarly, we might need human psychologists and therapists because they can empathise better with people than any emotional recognition system in the future. The point is that there are many nuances of human relationships that cannot be grasped by machines easily. Thus, machines need humans in the future, and cannot make them completely obsolete.

Lastly, Robots cannot absolutely replace humans in economic and political roles. In many cases where machines are seen replacing economic functions like accounting and financial assistants, they cannot completely take over these roles. Even in political scenarios, machines cannot take up political roles. For instance, though machines are being used in politics they cannot completely replace humans because governments need to work for the welfare of its citizens. It is also important to note that politicians are responsible for coming up with economic plans and policies and play a vital role in a country’s economy. Thus, machines cannot make humans obsolete in fields of politics or economics.

In conclusion, machines can work alongside humans but cannot make them completely obsolete. Though it is true that some technical aspects of the jobs can be taken over by robots, it cannot replace all job roles. As long as humans have their capacity to think and rationalise, they can never become obsolete.

‘It is better to be a pragmatist than an idealist.’ Discuss.

A pragmatist is one who observes the physical reality of the world around him, analysing, making judgements and attempting to formulate the most efficient and successful plan to cope with his circumstances or problems. An idealist is not a direct contrast to a pragmatist, but much of his ideas and methods stem from a frail thing called hope (that has proven excessively difficult to slaughter), and a concern for more than practical reality. If there is a quote that may sum up this comparison succinctly, it would be, “a cynic is one who knows the price of everything and value of nothing.” The cynic, who considers himself pre-eminently practical, is an accurate representation of what one might call a pragmatist to the core.

The contention that pragmatism is a more favoured stance to take than idealism is not totally incorrect in the fast-paced, material world that we live in, but it is flawed in that it does not address the complete nature of humans and of life, and therefore cannot be taken without a healthy pinch of salt.

For practical reasons, quite obviously, pragmatism should be favoured in order to successfully deal with real-life situations, but it is definitely better to still remain an idealist in principle, so that, in accomplishing one’s goals, one does not neglect to consider the value of the lives that may be lost, and the moral boundaries that may be shattered. An idealist with no pragmatic side to him will be in no position to accomplish his goals except by constantly going to protest marches and perhaps “blogging” about his concerns. This individual will only end up frustrated, and he will simply place himself above real-world concerns such as real economic crises or political barriers, and cast his ill-informed disdain upon those who are probably doing more than him to help the rest of the world.

For an idealist to achieve his goals, he must understand how to manipulate his circumstances favourably, to avoid being one of the dilettantes that pollute the Internet with poor ideas of being the world’s moral watchdog. Rather one should emulate individuals such as Bill and Melinda Gates, who have not only taken advantage of their circumstances to become the richest people in the world, but have also kept in their hearts the noble principles of charity. Of course, one may argue that pragmatism and idealism simply cannot go together; that the two values are irreconciliable but as earlier said, they can exist in two separate states – idealism in the mind, and pragmatism in practice – to be able to realise those ideals.

Oftentimes it is pragmatism that concerns itself with making the best of a situation, or in other words, to lose as little as possible, but it is idealism that consists of envisioning a better future and winning as much as possible, and as such is necessary for progress. A feminist hardliner would be likely to bite your head off if you told her to make the best of her situation some years back in the benighted times of female oppression. A nicer feminist would then inform you that it was their idealism, not their coping mechanisms, that helped raise the female individual in society to equal, and nowadays, greater status than men. One who is familiar

with the story of the boy (or girl) who ran down the beach at low tide to throw as many as he could of the stranded starfish back into the water would also know of the practical and grumpy man who asked the boy why he was doing an act that did not matter since he could only save a few of the starfish. The boy’s reply is astoundingly mature, and also representative of his respect for the value of all life. “It matters to this one”, he said, before throwing another starfish back in. A totally pragmatic person like the old man cannot see the point of taking part in what seems to be a futile activity but the young boy recognizes that though what he does seems inconsequential, it is a positive difference that he is making in the world. Like the old man, some may argue that it is more important to view one’s deeds in the light of the big picture, that one life is just one life, that a single hair is of no importance, if we are to be practical. But as the Taoist Lie Zi once said, enough hairs are as important as skin and flesh, enough skin and flesh are as important as one limb, enough limbs are as important as a life, and so on.

Idealism, as was earlier mentioned, has to deal with a frail thing called hope, and when things seem always to run counter to one’s wishes, it is hope that gives one the strength and courage to press on and truly succeed, rather than pragmatism that screams in one’s face of the futility of a struggle against what may seem to be forces that far outstrip one’s own power. A pragmatist’s attitude will not help a country or person in reduced circumstances, but hope for a better life for oneself and the generations after oneself is the primary ingredient of nation-building and of rising above the forces that hold one down. The Special Olympics is a very clear example of how disadvantaged athletes may still fulfil their dreams and bring glory to the countries they represent. The hundred metres dash in the Special Olympics, in a cynic’s eyes, cannot hold a candle to the performances of athletes like Maurice Green, but it certainly holds the blazing torch of hope for those who believe their lives to hopeless. It was Qin Shi Huang who remained stoic and strong, and who battled all odds to unify China and give it the potential to become what it is now, one of the greatest nations of the world. Such an ambitious plan no doubt originated from a mind that still maintained the big picture and all its problems, but also possessed the true hope and spirit of idealism. Great developments only take place

when an idealist or a group of them initiates them. Obviously, it may be argued that the opposite is true, and that consequently more disastrous mistakes may occur, such as the Great Leap Forward, which was more like a great leap backward. However, if we were to give up on the possibility of surging forward together as one human race and all the risks involved, it will be likely that even given several millennia, we would not have moved forward. Idealism, therefore, cannot be compromised for the sake of pragmatist ideas, but must remain at the root of our principles.

Pragmatists also like to say that they concern themselves with the “greater good”, but they usually have a cold, harsh way of looking at present facts, and often ignore or dismiss the true value of persons and other things involved. A pragmatic nurse would be likely to give a dying patient a pat on the head and a pull on the plug of the life-support system (well, perhaps not the pat on the head). But one of the greatest idealists of all time devoted herself to the care of the dying in Calcutta. She devoted all resources she had, along with her fellow nuns, to making them comfortable and giving them a death that was as dignified as possible given the situation. The old man in the starfish story would have scratched his head and asked her the same question. Mother Teresa would then have replied with her quote that has become one of my own personal principles, “No one can do great things, only small things, with great love.” One may argue, even upon hearing this heartwarming profession of compassion, that the resources she used to care for the dying would be better employed on other lives, but we must also recognize that while the dying are still alive, they deserve as much, if not more, respect and reverence as any other human beings.

A pragmatist would not realise this, and if the world were a wholly pragmatic one, many people would die uncared for and many more terminally-ill children would be abandoned on the streets. Pragmatism, therefore, is not a wicked principle, but it is heartless and valueless if not married with the appropriate idealistic values of hope and the inherent sacredness of life. Therefore, if we are to achieve our idealistic goals, it is important that we employ pragmatic practices while bearing in mind the end result of a better future for all men. Only by doing this may we constantly push against the constraints of circumstance and create break-throughs that humanity needs in order to rise to greatness.

Is technology the solution to the problem of global poverty?

Technology is often viewed as a solution to all of humanity’s problems. Afterall technology has opened up many avenues for mankind. From medicines that can cure diseases to software that can crunch and compute vital information, technology has provided endless solutions. It is no surprise then that many people believe that technology can provide solutions to the global problem of poverty. Technology has successfully alleviated poverty in multiple ways in the form of food production, microfinancing and education. However, global poverty is a complex issue and requires a multifaceted approach, that is why technology is only part of the solution to the problem of global poverty.

Technology can help and remove people from the cycle of poverty through access to genetically modified crops. According to the United Nations, around 1.4 billion people rely on agriculture for their daily subsistence. Technology can help these communities by introducing better farming techniques and growing higher yield crops. Most of the times extreme weather conditions destroy the crops for the poor, in such condition technology can prove as a helpful tool. For example, farmers throughout the Global South are turning to SMS-based services for technical support that allows them more easily to adopt new crops and growing techniques. Technology thus provides people with benefits for both natural resources and household income and nutrition. Technology is responsible for the development of ‘high-yielding’ crops like wheat and corn through advances in molecular genetics. However, technology also has a flip side, these technologies meant to help poor farmers often are expensive and end up helping richer businesses, which in turn drives farmers towards poverty. Moreover, even if the poor farmers have access to these technologies, they might lack the technological know-how, which might make such technologies of little use. Thus, while technology has the potential to aid the poor by increasing access to basic necessities, it is unfortunately hampered by several other factors, preventing its effects to be maximised.

Technology, in the form of new media, has contributed significantly to combating poverty. Social media is a prominent tool for spreading knowledge and awareness. It also has the power to influence people to take actions and measures to tackle the issue of poverty. social media, to educate and transform how people engage with reducing poverty. Social media can help in solving the issue of poverty by sharing information to raise public awareness and involvement. An example of this was seen recently, where The Junior League of Savannah participated in the Little Black Dress Initiative where women wore the same black dress for five days. Through the initiative, they tried to illustrate how poverty affects women. Through the initiative, they invited to dialogue about poverty. The influence of social media also encourages people to volunteer and donate to causes that can reduce poverty. An example of this is the Red Nose campaign which has successfully raised $200 million and positively impacted the lives of nearly 25 million children. Many Non-Governmental Organisations around the world employ social media for fundraising and awareness. Thus, technology in the form of social media helps in improving the conditions of the poor and also garner attention towards the issue of poverty.

However, technology cannot help in situations where governments are corrupt and lack governance skills. It is often seen that countries with poor leadership face a greater degree of poverty. Many times, governments fail to manage funds and the mismanagement aggravates the situations. Brazil, Venezuela, and even countries like India are often unable to use technology to better the lives of people, simply due to poor leadership and corruption. Therefore, technology cannot solve the problem of inefficient and corrupt governments.

In conclusion, technology has been an instrumental tool in tackling the issue of poverty to some extent. However, poverty is a complex issue which requires better approaches than just technology. Technology needs to be used in efficient ways with a combination of government efforts and international organisations. Therefore, a better approach is required to tackle the issue of global poverty.

Selflessness is a desirable quality. Do you agree?

Selflessness is the concern for needs and wishes of others than with one’s own. People generally believe that being selfless is a quality that is desirable. Altruistic qualities are often associated with being selfless, while negative qualities are often associated with selfishness. Many people distinguish selfish people as those who take and selfless people as those who give. However, it is a generalisation and there is a need to view selflessness from multiple perspectives. It cannot be denied that selflessness is a desirable quality to a large extent.

Selflessness is often promoted as a positive quality in religious texts. Many religions are linked to people becoming more altruistic. Globally all religions promote altruism, by helping others, individuals feel good about themselves. In religions like Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam people are encouraged to be selfless and keep the needs and wants of others at the forefront. In Hinduism for instance, Bhagavad Gita describes selflessness as the essence of karma yoga and the basis of all existence. Similarly, in Christianity, people are encouraged to be selfless. This is evident from the two commandments “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God” is first, and “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”. Selflessness in a religious sense is a desirable quality because it encourages people to help others. Therefore, selflessness is a desirable quality as it encourages a humanistic nature in people.

Selflessness is not considered a desirable trait because people falsely believe that their needs are not valid. Opponents of selflessness believe that selflessness is a way of morally bullying an individual. They often argue that even religion promotes selfishness and not selflessness. For example, in Christianity, it is believed that if people help others and keep others needs at fore, they will get a place in heaven. They, therefore, believe that even acts of selflessness require selfishness. Therefore, selflessness is not a desirable quality.

Despite this, it cannot be denied that selflessness is desirable because it makes life better for an individual and also others. Selfless actions are helpful to people who live around us and fosters a sense of self-identity. Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi are notable examples of people who have truly been selfless and helped society in a myriad of ways. Gandhi’s selflessness awakened the national consciousness of people. Similarly, Mother Teresa accepted the rejects of the society and transformed them trough her selfless acts. She always believed that “the most horrible disease is not leprosy or tuberculosis. It is the feeling to be undesirable, rejected, abandoned by all.” Selflessness is morally desirable as it helps people to make the lives of people around them better.

Selflessness within societies as it encourages people to progress and prosper together. In every society, it is desired that individuals cultivate selflessness because it helps people. Many societies go to the extent of fostering selflessness through various activities and programmes. For example, in Singapore, there is a Kindness Movement, that provides people with volunteering opportunities to help those in need. Selflessness allows people to open their hearts and understand the problem of others. Some might argue that Singapore as a competitive country is selfish especially in terms of education and economics. However, it can not be overlooked that movements like these encourage people to grow and prosper together and show that selflessness is valued and desired in many societies. Thus, selflessness is a desirable quality.

Though selflessness is the desired quality, people often fail to work selflessly in certain circumstances. Many times people do not act selflessly, for example, many rehabilitated criminals are not accepted back into society. Recent pandemic has also shown that though selflessness is desired not many people practice it. For example, there have been instances across the world where sellers are hoarding hand sanitizers and masks and selling them at a higher price. These examples clearly show that ideally, people would like to work selflessly, in reality, it is not possible. Thus, even though selflessness is a desired quality many do not act selflessly.

Selflessness is a moral principle that is highly desirable. Selflessness allows people to widen their perspective and understand people better. Religion and society also prove that selflessness is the desired quality because they promote acts of helping and volunteering for the benefit of others. Even today many people act in a selfless manner. This is evident from the fact that many doctors, policemen, cleaners are working tirelessly during the recent pandemic and helping people. Selflessness has the power to change the world and is, therefore, a desirable quality.

In conclusion, selflessness is to a large extent a desirable quality as it helps people and society. Though being selfless is desired, people need to realise that it cannot always be practised. In our materialistic world where people thrive in selfishness acts of selflessness are truly desired because they keep us in touch with our humanity.

Can patriotism be taught?

Many believe that young people today are less patriotic ~~today~~. They argue that young people view their country more negatively than older generations. ~~They believe that the reason behind this is the younger generation is not taught to respect their country and be patriotic.~~ However, patriotism is an enlarged and extended form of love for one’s country which cannot be forced upon people. One should be patriotic not because they were taught to do so but because an individual considers themselves to be part of the country. Therefore, it can be contended that patriotism cannot be taught to a large extent because only through the citizen’s personal development and experiences will they be willing to sacrifice and contribute to the wellbeing of their country.

In many countries across the world, governments try to integrate patriotism in the educational curriculum. Patriotism is taught in schools by singing the national anthem, repeating the national pledge and even by teaching historical events that happened in the country. ~~However, this association of education with patriotism is not correct as it makes people rigid in their views and opinions.~~ The concept of patriotism is unique to every person and the idea of loving one’s country can differ from one person to another. For some being proud of the military is patriotism and for the others supporting the athletes who are representing the country at international level is patriotism. ~~The aim of drilling patriotism in young people’s mind is ineffective because in using education when we try to integrate patriotism it can also lead to distortion of facts.~~ For example, in countries like Pakistan history text books present a very skewed view of the India-Pakistan partition and war. Therefore, patriotism should not be taught instead young people should be given an opportunity to love and respect their country through personal experiences.

Patriotism through rigid and repetitive exercise can acquaint one with patriotism, but may not fully convince them.

Teaching patriotism does not work because when it is taught the efforts are taken for granted. When patriotism is taught through acts like singing national anthem and holding flags, then patriotism is taken for granted. This is because the true meaning behind patriotism is lost and people do not really understand the sacrifice of the freedom fighters. Patriotism when taught leads people to respect a country only for a moment. This is evident from the fact that in many countries people only celebrate national day or Independence Day like a holiday without understanding the true meaning behind it. The meaning behind patriotism cannot be taught and therefore the efforts of instilling patriotism are futile. Moreover, when people are taught patriotism, they might just follow the trend instead of really respecting or loving the country. Therefore, patriotism should not be taught because it does not truly make a person patriotic.

Patriotism can only be learned through personal experiences and struggles. Patriotism that consists of the experiences people have living in their country can be a life-long learning experience. Only through their experiences, people feel more inclined to love and respect their country. For example, during the Covid19 pandemic, many governments encouraged citizens to buy local products. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave the call for “vocal for local”. Similarly, French citizens were asked to fulfil their patriotic duty and eat more cheese to help the dairy industry amid the coronavirus. Furthermore, citizens of many countries maintained social distancing and staying at home so that their country can emerge victorious in the battle with coronavirus. Hence, it is not essential for education to teach patriotism. Rather, patriotism is an ideal which has to grow within individuals through experience.

From a practical perspective, young people can be taught about historical events that can build a sense of patriotism and national identity among the youth. The events can also serve as lessons that help in guiding the young into the future. The knowledge of a country’s history can serve as a source of inspiration for people. The organic nature of patriotism can be seen at sports meets and even in cuisine. The Iranians show excessive pride for their wrestling athletes as do the Russians for their gymnasts. Brazilians believe that their soccer team is endowed with supernatural abilities by the soccer Gods, while the New Zealand rugby team proudly perform their Hakka to show strength and pride.

Singaporeans and Malaysians constantly argue over who makes better chicken rice and other hawker food staples like satay and crab curry. In 2014, the Israelis set the record for the largest plate of hummus, cooking some 4,000 kilos of the stuff. A few months later, Lebanon responded with a humongous 10,000-kilo dish. Countries have argued over the origins of the pavlova, kimchi and even cheese. These aspects cannot be taught but are felt in every living fibre of the patriot.

Thus, patriotism cannot be taught through education or by singing the national anthem. It has to develop in individuals voluntarily in order for ideals of patriotism to be deeply rooted. As the world becomes flatter, it is difficult to wave the flag of patriotism as people become more connected through movies, music and even muses. While teaching patriotism can be considered a starting point to imbibe in each citizen the fervour to love their country, the overall nature of patriotism is that it has to be felt, consumed and defended particularly when pride is at stake.

Public figures have to behave well at all times. Do you agree?

The 24×7 media today has placed public figures and celebrities constantly in the public eye. Their every move and action is scrutinized and analysed. This constant analysis of their life has a huge impact on the people who follow and sometimes worship them. Thus, it is fair to say that public figures should behave well most of the time as their actions have the power to influence people particularly when sections of the public look up to them as role models.

Public figures have to behave responsibly because they are accountable for the reputation of the body they represent. In political scenarios, this is extremely true because any misconduct can lead to public distrusting the political party. For example, in the United States, Senator Al Franken had to resign when several women accused him of behaving inappropriately with them. After the allegations surfaced, more than two dozen Democratic senators called on Franken to resign. Similarly, United States politician, Tim Murphy, an outspoken opponent of abortion was revealed to have strongly encouraged his mistress to get an abortion when she became pregnant. This accusation led him to resign from the party he was representing. These examples illustrate how inappropriate behaviour even in private lives can wreak havoc on their credibility and integrity. Public figures should not forget that their actions can have severe consequences as even a small detail can become big news. Thus, it is true that public figures should behave well all the time as their mistakes can damage the reputation of a political party and raise questions about their credibility.

Public figures also need to behave well all the time as they need to develop mutual trust. Successful public figures in the public eye need to build an image that shows they support family values. For example, the duke and duchess of Cambridge are always seen together with their kids. Many believe that the family is the picture of perfection, always upholding royal standards where even their kids have likely never been photographed crying. Despite being royals, their down to earth nature has made them famous among the commoners. On the same note, Leonardo DiCaprio has gained a huge fan following because of his image as a celebrity who takes care of the environment and animals. Even at the Oscars, DiCaprio chose to talk about environmental issues and won the hearts of millions. These examples illustrate how society expects public figures to be worthy and standing for all the right issues. Thus, public figures need to behave well all the time because they need to gain the trust of millions.

Public figures are looked up to by followers as role models and they need to behave well to set a good example. Public figures have a huge influence on people’s behaviour. Many look up to sportspersons, singers and actors as role models and emulate their behaviour. In such a case it is a moral duty of public figures to behave in an appropriate manner all the time so that they can have a positive impact on society. Singer Lorde, for instance, called out a Photoshopped image of herself on Twitter. With the image, she tweeted that it is important to remember that flaws are okay. Through this tweet, she influenced the body-image discussion for the better and promoted body positivity. On the other hand, celebrities like Kim Kardashian have faced severe backlash for selling and promoting products like, Appetite Suppressant Lollipops and have been accused of being a ‘toxic influence’ on youngsters who are impressionable and face the constant pressure of looking a certain way. Public figures need to realise that they have a responsibility towards society, as their followers would want to dress, act, be like them. Therefore, it is necessary for public figures to behave well all the time because they can influence the behaviour and actions of people in society.

In conclusion, it can be said that celebrities should behave well most of the time because their behaviour can have positive and negative impacts. Public figures who seek the benefits of fame must be able to take the downside of public interrogation. Public figures hold huge power and thus are accountable for their behaviour which can negatively influence people around them and society at large. To say a celebrity is not responsible for his or her actions is saying that as human beings, our lives aren’t all somehow connected.