Morals cannot be taught. Do you agree?

The statement “morals cannot be taught” suggests an intrinsic knowledge in every person of the rights and wrongs of society. It is based on the idea of an instinctive leaning in everyone toward either good or bad and a complete absence of any change as a result of external influence.

Morals exist as a definition of society. Society has dictated the correctness, the desirability of honesty, integrity – good behaviour. It is, thus, difficult to imagine societal conventions as instinctive. The concept of right and wrong is a matter of learning, and acquisition of knowledge. Thus, morals can be taught, and have to be, to a child.

A human baby is absolutely helpless and altogether undeveloped: its brain will more than double in size in its first year of life. he complexity of human behaviour has to be taught to these impressionable infants.

Because humans exist in such a complicated society, necessary social skills are definitely not present in such young minds. Babies and young children rarely behave correctly: they do not compromise and insist on asserting individual rights. Embarrassed parents are often observed ushering misbehaving children out of public places – the adults know full well their child is engaging in undesirable behaviour, but the child is often completely unaware of this.

The effect of familial influence on the morals of offspring is a widely accepted fact – the morals are obviously taught. The neglected young with no positive influence develop into adults with no clear sense of morals – a scenario often presented and shockingly true. Crime rates are linked to poverty levels – struggling parents are too exhausted or too benumbed to care what their young do for money, and with no one to correct their wrong behaviour, these people continue to err.

The behaviour of one’s parents, or any person of guiding influence, dictates the behaviour of oneself. A dishonest person, who thinks nothing of keeping for himself property lost by others, breeds children with the same pattern of thought, simply because the child would receive no message that such an act is wrong. Other examples abound, of similar evidence: an overwhelming 92% of pre-school age children surveyed in London last year displayed patterns of thought almost exactly similar to that of their parents.

The traditions of one’s culture also dictate one’s morals. For example, bigamy is frowned upon by many societies, for being morally reprehensible and violating the rights of women. However, other societies permit this, for example, Muslim men can have up to four wives, and harems were common among Eastern kings in history. Clearly, the established “morals” of monogamy are not instinctive: Muslim men who practice polygamy certainly are not repulsed by the idea of their many wives; polygamous men brought up to believe in monogamy will suffer feelings of guilt at having done wrong.

That morals are taught can be examined in a more interesting fashion, by observing people brought up outside the human community. In the early 1970s, an Indian researcher rescued a girl of eight, who had been brought up by a pack of wolves. While she cowered in his presence, she once leapt at a sleeping baby and snapped at its neck. She was clearly displaying wolf-like behaviour, of healthy respect for bigger animals, but the ruthless killing of weaker ones for food. The killing of a baby is seen as being wrong only by people taught that it is wrong.

The laws of society, and punishment for the violation of these laws, again refute the idea that morals cannot be taught. By reinforcing the established conventions of society’s morals, and inflicting punishment if wrong is done, the system seeks to inculcate moral values in the people, first by detailing what is wrong, then by a clear message that such wrongdoing will be punished.

Indeed, if morals cannot be taught, then what of the numerous campaigns launched by the government? These work by reiterating values as correct, so constantly and repetitively they become accepted as morals. Again, these exist as a reinforcement to those established by society.

Perhaps certain mentally limited individuals cannot be taught morals; certainly insanity is a valid plea in courts of law, admitting that such criminals are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. However, in the majority of the population, morals can be taught. Indeed, morals exist only because they are taught – by the family, by religious texts, by society. Morals are established by the society, for we decide what to believe is right or wrong, and have to teach our young accordingly.

With the rise of the Internet, has conventional media become obsolete?

Despite the pervasive influence of the Internet, traditional media still has a growing role. Conventional media continues to stay very popular and important in the daily lives of citizens. Many individuals still listen to the radio while driving to work, read the newspapers on their commute and of course, watch TV while cooking or during dinner with their family. But, over the last 20 years, the Internet and its ecosystem have taken up an important part within our society. This is particularly prominent amongst Generation Y and Z consumers. It would be a stretch to say that conventional media is obsolete. It may be perhaps a tad underused.

Interestingly, the number of hours spent watching television has gone up even in the age of the Internet. Cable TV has exploded with the number of programme offerings and reality TV shows that have captivated audiences for over 20 seasons. While it can be argued that Netflix and Amazon Prime have an increasing following, but these entertainment channels do not offer news, travel and other current affairs programmes. That said, most people prefer to watch Netflix on a large TV screen rather than a tablet or smartphone.

The Internet has changed direct mail quite significantly. Various service providers can provide targeted advertising online and payment only is made when a potential consumer clicks through. There are more avenues to track advertisements through built-in tools that track demographics, location and even the type of device through which the advertisement was seen. Brands are specifically targeting their ideal buyer rather selecting a broad market to bombard with their message. These brands are building relationships with these ideal buyers through increasingly powerful marketing strategies that foster trust in their product or service.

Blogs such as Daily Kos and The Huffington Post have gained credibility and large readerships over the past decade, forcing traditional journalists to blog and tweet in order to keep pace with the flow of the story. Traditional newspapers are also losing out to news aggregators such as Google News, which profit from providing links to journalists’ stories at major newspapers without offering financial compensation to either the journalists or the news organizations. Many newspapers have adapted to the Internet out of necessity, fighting falling circulation figures and slumping advertising sales by offering websites, blogs, and podcasts. The relative success of new media companies such as Vice, Buzzfeed, and Vox – and the fact that some of their largest backers are from the old guard.

The power and influence of conventional media is slowing waning. But a lot of work needs to be put in place to ensure that new media can eclipse old media and create a shining pathway for governments, businesses and consumers. One vital aspect is ensuring proper laws are in place to prevent fake news and to protect free speech. Secondly, censorship and regulation of content has to be more acceptable as a way of producing quality content that helps society grow.  While these issues may create some set-backs for new media, it is nevertheless increasing in popularity and accessibility by leaps and bounds.

The efforts to save the environment is the responsibility of developed nations. Discuss.

The destructive bushfires of Australia in 2019 gained widespread media attention. Many discussions and debates talked about various causes which led to the disaster. One recurring theme in all these debates was man-made climate change. Environmental damage can also be seen in the arctic, where melting snow has led to the death of polar bears. It is estimated that polar bears will go extinct in ten years if nothing is done to help preserve their environment. These incidents prove that the efforts to save the environment have not materialised into reality yet. One of the reasons for this is that many believe that developed nations should shoulder the responsibility of conserving the environment as they are better equipped to do so. From a practical perspective, developed nations should shoulder the efforts to save the environment as they have been the main culprits in its destruction.

Developed nations should conserve the environment because they have better resources financially and technologically. Many developed countries have already taken steps to mitigate environmental problems in multiple ways. One of the ways developed nations have adopted is the construction of buildings with ample of green spaces. An example of this can be seen in Singapore, throughout its architecture it encourages the inclusion of plants and trees. Private buildings like Oasia Hotel in downtown Singapore is coated in greenery. The Singapore government is also focusing on planting new trees and preserving mature ones to make housing estates greener, sustainable and more liveable. Similarly, in Chicago, the City Hall Roof which is practically a garden boasts of various flowering plants and bushes. The roof was made to serve as an example for other buildings in the state. It also was made in an attempt to combat rising temperature and improve air quality. The Chicago green roof fulfilled all these goals which is evident from the fact that more than 400 green rooftops are constructed since then. Thus, developed nations are better equipped to save the environment because they have the technology and finances to assist them in this endeavour which many countries do not possess.

Developed nations are primary contributors to environmental damage due to their large-scale industrial activity. Apart from that, the per capita consumption patterns are also very high in the developed world. Thus, these developed countries should take ownership and mitigate the effects of environmental damage. There are companies in the developed world that are taking measures to prevent environmental damage. An example, of this, can be Coco-Cola company that has adopted environmental-friendly practices like conservation of freshwater rivers and sourcing their ingredients from sustainable sources. The company is also set to make changes to its packaging by introducing recyclable plastic bottles. Similarly, IKEA, a furniture company, through its Live Lagom project, encouraged its customers and employee live in a more sustainable way by sourcing sustainable products and only adding furniture to their home when it’s truly beneficial. These efforts by international companies help in making the world a greener and better place. Thus, developed nations have to play a larger role in promoting the efforts to save the environment.

However, it should be noted that developing countries today are mainly responsible for environmental damage as they are undergoing industrial developments. In the future too, it is the current rapidly developing nations that will be the primary contributors to global warming. However, developing nations too could undertake efforts to mitigate environmental damage. An example of this can be the North African country of Morocco, that has successfully shown the will to mitigate climate change by committing to produce electricity through renewable energy sources by 2020. Another country, Brazil has developed innovative products like plastic made from sustainable materials like sugar cane ethanol. This plastic is considered to help in reducing emissions and minimising environmental damage.  Similarly, developing countries are also focusing on ecotourism to protect the environment. An example of this is the country of Belize, which is focusing on eco-tourism and is protecting and preserving its natural environments and exotic wildlife. The Belize Barrier Reef is conserved and protected and is an important place which promotes biodiversity. Thus, developing countries can also take efforts and play a part in environmental conservation.

In conclusion, there is no denying that developed countries are better off financially and technologically in mitigating issues related to the environment. However, it is unfair to expect that all the efforts to save the environment should be taken by the developed countries. This is because the task is a Herculean one which requires efforts from all countries and stakeholders. Therefore, everyone is instrumental in preventing environmental degradation. Therefore, while the efforts to save the environment lies in the hands of all the stakeholders, developed countries should shoulder the main responsibility.

To what extent does social media pose a challenge for the government?

Social media is being used in unprecedented ways today. While it has helped people to communicate from across the world. It is also an important tool in influencing thoughts and ideas of people. People today can use social media to share all sorts of information to a larger and wider audience. While that is beneficial in some instances, from a governmental perspective, it can pose a challenge. This is because social media can spread misinformation that can lead to social discord. Thus, it can be said that social media poses serious challenges for governments because the government has little control over social media platforms.

Social media is an unregulated platform with widespread reach which is a serious challenge for the governments.  Today, billions of people use the internet and have access to social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. All these platforms display information that can influence people to a large extent. Currently, there are no laws that are meant to regulate these platforms. Governments believe these platforms are very popular and have a massive outreach which directly influences people. For example, during the Arab Spring social media played an instrumental role in spreading awareness. Recently, a US teenager’s TikTok video went viral about the Muslims being put under concentration camps, the video raised awareness about the treatment of Uighur Muslims. Though social media in these instances has often exposed the role of authoritarian governments. There is no denying that governments of these countries have faced immense challenges in controlling these platforms. This is evident from the fact that even after placing bans on Facebook and Instagram in countries like China, people have found workarounds and use Virtual Private Networks (VPN) to access these platforms. Thus, social media poses a serious challenge for governments who want to establish dominance over its people.

Social media use does not lead to mass revolt, but it could still pose a challenge as an arena in which dangerous ideas circulate. Social media has been used by various terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-E-Taiba in the past. In recent times, ISIS is fighting an online cyberwar, with the use of violent videos, online messages of hate and aim to radicalise and create a new generation of cyber jihadists. Similarly, the Christchurch shootings were orchestrated for the media and spread the message of fear among the masses. Apart from terrorist activities, social media poses a challenge in the form of international governments who try to intervene on internal matters of a country. An example of this is China, which used platforms like LinkedIn to recruit spies in the US. Similarly, Pakistan is known to use social media against India in multiple instances. Leading media houses uncovered propaganda run by Pakistan on social media against PM Modi hours before his crucial meeting with Chinese premier Xi Jinping. All these examples illustrate how social media can be misused to spread misinformation and messages of violence.  Therefore, unregulated social media poses a huge challenge for governments as dangerous information circulates widely.

However, in rare instances, social media can also be beneficial to governments which minimise the challenges posed. Social media can be used by governments to interact with people directly during a crisis. An example of this can be the recent outbreak of coronavirus, where governments have tried to use social media to try and reduce panic and mitigate misinformation. Effective use of social media was seen by Singapore, where anxiety and panic of citizens were reduced by updating citizens regularly via social media. When the disease level was raised to orange and citizens began hoarding groceries, the government was quick in trying to reassure and calm citizens. However, despite the attempts, people have not stopped panicking or believing rumours. This is evident from the fact that citizens have used social media to express veiled criticism of government mismanagement and lack of government accountability. Social media now acts as a check and balance against the government. With the use of social media even honest and genuine efforts by the governments can be undermined. Therefore, social media ultimately poses a challenge and is largely a necessary evil that has to be managed.

In conclusion, social media is largely a challenge to the government because it cannot be easily regulated. While laws and policies exist to manage social media, enforcement is often impossible due to anonymity as well as how quickly messages are spread. Though the benefits of social media cannot be denied, from a governmental perspective social media poses serious challenges and is a threat to the government bodies.

Is it possible for your society to be fair and inclusive?

Singapore is known as a multi-cultural society. It is believed society is fair when people are judged on their abilities and efforts rather than factors like race and religion. Inclusiveness in a society means that all members of society benefit from progress and development. It also means that all people have opportunities to do well and raise their status. Diversity is celebrated and respected in an inclusive society. In these terms then, Singapore is a pretty fair and inclusive society.

The Singapore government adopts policies that benefit all. The government understands that all people regardless of race, religion, gender and age have something to contribute to the nation. The annual budget plan of the Singapore government generally focuses on creating neighbourhoods and transport systems which are elder-friendly. Apart from that, the government also has adopted GST vouchers that help in uplifting people from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Similarly, healthcare has integrated and streamlined to make it more affordable. Singaporeans also come together to celebrate various festivities. The Chinese host open houses during Chinese New Year, as do Indians for Deepavali. On the political front, chief-of-army, ministerial positions as well as heads of state have been graced by minorities. Thus, Singapore tries to be fair and inclusive by introducing policies that benefit all and appoint leaders based on meritocracy.

Singapore also ensures inclusivity and fairness in its educational system. The government has ensured that the education system is affordable for all. Educational policies ensure that everyone in society progresses and tries its best to prevent social exclusion. The education system also ensures that it better integrates the learning needs of the students. The government tries its best to ensure that no child is excluded from basic education that provides them with literacy and numeracy skills. Even prisoners have access to education and can complete Cambridge exams while serving time. Increasingly, disabled children are also integrated with peers from regular school systems. Thus, there is inclusiveness and fairness in education systems in Singaporean society.

However, despite the educational policies of the government, educational systems continue to create a divide within society. Educational systems tend to be unfair when rich parents are able to afford tuition and extra classes for their children. This educational disparity creates a rift between the rich and the poor. Nevertheless, self-help groups do exist to provide extra classes outside of school hours to those that need it.  It is also easily observable that only a small proportion of people with disabilities are employed and many face discrimination in the workplace. Those above 45 also have trouble finding jobs in Singapore as foreign workers are often favoured over locals. No society is perfect, but Singapore tries its best to ensure no one is left behind.

The Singapore pledge reminds people about the idea of equality. Thus, it can be said that Singapore in many ways is a society which welcomes and accepts people from all walks of life regardless of their differences. Thus, it possible to have a fair and inclusive society in Singapore when people actively practice it in their daily lives. It is surely possible to have a fair and inclusive society in Singapore, by the implementation of government policies, education, and awareness on an individual level.

Television is detrimental to our ability to think critically. Discuss.

There is no denying that television has entertained us and educated us. Many consider it essential to the development of mass media. However, there are others who believe that television affects our critical thinking. Critical thinking is the ability to look at things from various perspectives to reach a balanced conclusion.  When people watch television, they passively absorb the information without questioning its reliability. Thus, in this sense, it can be contended that television is detrimental to our ability to think critically.

Television is responsible for showing information that is biased in nature. Television is responsible for portraying reality from only one perspective. This is particularly true in today’s society where people are surrounded by fake news or half-truths. For example, in the United States, the Fox News Channel has been taken to task for practising biased reporting by favouring Republican Party and portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light. The biased reporting of can be detrimental to the integrity of news and can also affect the thinking ability of the people. Another case in point is China. China’s state-sponsored channel, CGTN, has been under investigation by the United Kingdom for only representing the point of view of the Communist Party of China. Biased news on TV has the ability to inhibit our critical thinking, especially when everything is accepted without question. Thus, television affects our ability to think critically as it shows a biased perspective.

[The paragraph does not answer how critical thinking is impacted. Rather than focusing on giving two examples, it would be better to show how the ability to make good choices is impacted.]

People are influenced by celebrities who they see on TV channels. Many people are obsessed with celebrities and try to follow whatever their idols do. When celebrities give their opinion on a matter or promote products or causes, their fans are bound to follow their advice. For example, Pierce Bronson received a lot of flak for promoting a mouth freshener which was deemed carcinogenic in nature. This was due to the fact that celebrities’ influences consumer choices as they believe everything that they say. The popularity of shows like Dr.Phil, Dr.Oz and The Oprah Show is a testament to the fact that celebrities on TV have the power to influence people. Therefore, television is detrimental to thinking critically by both inviting an erosion of critical thinking and promoting what is popular rather than what is true.

[Still not answering the question. The paragraph does not show the key terms in the last sentence].

Television is also responsible for presenting reality in an oversimplified way and promoting violence. Many people view television and accept that as reality, television has the power to influence the world view of people. For example, shows like Criminal Minds, Grey’s Anatomy and Station 19 do not depict accurately portray the life of a policeman, FBI agent, doctor or a firefighter. Watching these shows does not enable critical thinking as they cause disillusionment and unrealistic expectations. Shows like are aired in a time span of 30-60 minutes but in the process, people form opinions without allowing the information to first be filtered through their minds. Furthermore, violent tv shows impact rational thinking in young people. For example, Dexter, a tv show about a serial killer inspired Mark Twitchell to commit first-degree murder. Similarly, a teenager obsessed with TV killer Dexter stabbed and dismembered his girlfriend. These examples illustrate that watching crime shows can lead to irrational thoughts and also lead to violent behaviour. Therefore, television is detrimental to thinking critically because it portrays reality in a less accurate way and also encourages people to act irrationally on impulse.

[Still not answering the question. The paragraph does not show the key terms in the last sentence. Mark Twitchell is an isolated example].

Despite its flaws, it cannot be denied that television, if used in a proper manner, can enable critical thinking. Documentaries on channels like National Geographic and Discovery enable critical thinking in people. Moreover, unbiased news channels like Channel News Asia and PBS present facts that showcase reality from various perspectives. Moreover, topical debate shows like Question Time on BBC enables audiences to listen to various opinions and form one of their own. Such shows enable people to form their opinions through critical thinking and not being influenced by reporters or celebrities. Therefore, watching correct forms of media can help people thinking critically.

In conclusion, television to a large extent is detrimental to critical thinking. However, to enable critical thinking people to need to be more careful about what they want to consume on television. If they choose to watch some violent show instead of an informative documentary, we cannot blame the television but the choice of the audience. Therefore, the audience is responsible for enabling critical thinking by discerning what to watch and what not to watch.

[Unfortunately, this essay is largely NAQ. Grammar fluctuates between third person, and first-person plural.]

Consider the view that cities of the future will need to be designed very differently from the ones we know today.

Cities of today are constructed in a way that makes people wonder how much progress we have made as a society. In fact, it is expected that people living in cities will multiply ten-fold in the next 4o years. The cities of the future will need to build using a holistic and sustainable approach. The cities of the future will need to be designed ensuring that it can accommodate a larger number of people and the quality of life is not compromised.


Many environmentalists predict that cities of the future will have to incorporate urban farming technologies. The urban farming technologies like vertical farming and hydroponics will be the future of the cities in the next few years. This will not only enable people to solve issues of food but also nourish the local economies. Another advantage of these vertical farms would be that they will add greenery to the concrete jungles of the future. It will also help people in eating food which is homegrown and will lead to healthier lifestyles. Initiatives in Shanghai, China and in Gotham, New York have sprung up to grow fruits and vegetables on roop tops and cleverly planned vertical farms. Thus, cities of the future need to be designed differently keeping in mind the agricultural practices and issues like water shortages.


The cities will have to be better designed in terms of transportation as well. Some of these technologies have already emerged in the present times. These include transportation in the form of electric cars and autonomous vehicles. The cities of the future will need to implement radical changes to other aspects of transportation like electric roads akin to the ones already seen in Frankfurt and Mannheim. The cities of the future may also need to change the mass transit system, to be faster and efficient. Elon Musk’s hyperloop concept, for example, could very much turn into a reality in the future. This is especially true in the case of India and Estonia where Virgin Hyperloop One is already planning routes for the transport. It could also be common to see drones delivering pizzas and robots cleaning homes in the future. Thus, current innovative ideas will have to be incorporated in the future cities to make them more fast, comfortable and efficient.
Future cities would also need to be more inclusive of the ageing population.

The buildings of the future would need to incorporate minor changes like ramps and lifts to allow wheelchair-bound elderly to move around the house. Cities of the future may also need to keep in mind the needs of the disabled. This can be done by creating doors that are slightly translucent for the deaf or street signs that are in braille. It might also need to include advancements in current designs like lift doors that remain open for longer, handrails for people, wider gates and barrier-free roads. There can be the incorporation of elderly care with childcare which can prove beneficial in improving the mental health of the senior citizens. Thus, city developers of the future must keep in mind the needs of the elderly by creating diverse designs.

While these concepts could be easily implemented in developed countries, developing countries could have a problem in designing for the future. Expertise, finance and most importantly having an infrastructure that suits the economic climate could be a crucial factor determining the progress of Nairobi, Johannesburg or Lagos. The future does not need to be technologically advanced. It can be adaptive to nature and sustainable. The changes can be drastic in some areas but in other areas, there are only minor adjustments to be made to the existent designs. The cities of the future need to be different in terms of environment, transportation systems and will require to be more inclusive. In the future, the cities will not just be cities but smart cities.

Women will never enjoy the same rights as men. Do you agree?

The issue of gender equality has been discussed and debated for centuries. While optimists believe that gender equality is attainable. There are others who have offered cynical views on the issue stating that it is a difficult and unachievable goal. It can be said that women’s rights can be improved in the future but women will never enjoy the same rights as men due to social, political and religious beliefs.

Women and men enjoy equal rights only in progressive societies. Women in countries like the US, UK and Canada have proved that women can contribute to the economy significantly. Women of today are empowered; this is evident from protests and parades where they fight for their rights. Women today even are given the same suffrage rights and the authority to make decisions about their lives. Thus, women do have a chance at attaining equal rights as men, but for now, the most impact is in progressive societies. While feminist movements have empowered women, these movements have not been enough in bringing equal rights for women than men already enjoy. It is evident from the fact that women still do not get paid equal wages and are still under-represented in political fields. In Middle Eastern countries women are still oppressed and do not even enjoy basic rights such as education. This clearly shows that demonstrations and protests are not enough to bring equal rights to women if the governments and businesses are not ready to listen. Therefore, women will never enjoy the same rights due to various factors like society and politics being at play. 

In countries with religious influence women still remain as second-class citizens. Religion continues to be a driving force in many people’s lives. Religious texts have often portrayed women in submissive roles. In Christianity, the bible not only prescribes women to be submissive to husbands but even to the church and the community. Similarly, in the Jewish religious texts, hierarchies of gender are deeply entrenched. This is evident in several verses like Exodus 21:10 where god ordains men taking several wives. Though many liberals may find it in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which emphasise on equality, life and personal security. However, in many countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt, women’s rights are negligible and women do not enjoy equal rights in the name of traditions. Therefore, religious ideas deeply influence mindsets which can be a hindrance to the dream of attaining equal rights for men and women. 

Women do not enjoy equal rights in terms of wages. Despite various campaigns and efforts to close the gap between wages, the gap still exists. The issue of equal pay is even prevalent in developed countries. While Nordic countries have attained equal rights for women and men, the other countries are still lagging. In fact, a report published by The World Economic Forum states that for equal pay to come into picture women will have to wait until the year 2277. In developed countries like Singapore, women still earn less than women. A study by the Ministry of Manpower in Singapore found that women earned 6 per cent less than their male peers in 2018. Though the gender gap exists today, in the future women might receive close to equal if not equal pay. Therefore, equal rights between men and women would be difficult to achieve. 

Though inequality is not beneficial to society in any way, equal rights for women is a difficult goal to achieve due to various religious and social factors. In sectors like education and work women still have a long way to go. If one needs to attain equal rights for men and women there is a need to tackle inequality in all forms. Political, religious and cultural leaders have to make a concerted push to ensure equal rights. Without a large impetus, equal rights for women will remain a dream.

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.

“Statistics measure everything but prove nothing”. Discuss.

We use statistics every day, knowingly or unknowingly. Statistics is an important tool as it is often used to analyse the ever-changing situations around us. Every few seconds, a life is lost to disease; every day, several thousand people die in car accidents; every year, millions of babies are born. Many believe that statistics prove nothing. However, there is no doubt that statistics is an oracle that gives us much insight.

Statistics are important because we never stop going back to statistics to ‘prove’ our points in arguments. It plays an integral role in that particular area as we consider facts as truths that cannot be argued against and we consider statistics as facts. For example, if we compare the results of two different schools in a national exam, obviously we have proven that the school with a higher average score does have a higher average score than the other school. What statistics do, in this case, is to prove a fact is, in fact, a fact and that is all. What it does not, or cannot do is to prove that school A will always do better than school B in national examinations for example. If school B does better than school A in the following year, the statistics only prove that school A beat school B in the first year and the opposite in the second year.

The statistics reassure us. Statistics show that most people in Singapore live past the age of 70 years at least. This fact assures people that they still have time to do what they want to do, time to find a relationship perhaps, start a business or maybe travel the world. Critics might suggest that statistics prove that we will be one of those people who live past 70. But that argument is flawed in itself. If we take precautions and lead reasonable lifestyles, it is possible for us to be part of the statistics. Actuarial science provides much statistical data to insurers to ensure that they run a profitable business. That proves itself that statistics measures and proves general lifespans.

Statistics measure everything that can be measured – the number of people in a country, each person’s height, the number of accidents that occur in a period of time, the number of times our heartbeats per minute and so on. But critics opine that statistics cannot measure feelings and emotions, selflessness or selfishness. One could say that the critics have a weak understanding of statistics. With statistics, we can determine patterns of behaviour in society and we can study them. Statistics alone really prove nothing but statistics with some level of inference can give us insights into the world around us. If we were to use statistics blindly, we would be running into some very serious problems as a society. Just because certain prisons in the US have a greater number of ‘blacks’ or ‘Latinos’ in their prisons does not prove that these races have a higher tendency of becoming criminals. Unchecked, such ideas could worsen into even more severe racial discrimination. Many nowadays, troublemakers especially, use statistics as a means to distort the truth. There is much value statistics can bring, and if used correctly, statistics can prove regression, deviation, reliability and validity of the information.

Everything that can be quantified is quantified or at least being quantified. We turn to statistics to prove our theories of the world around us in an attempt to have a better understanding of our surroundings. We use statistics to justify the impact on surveys, business operations and even obscure issues like best ice-cream flavour. Statistics are a useful measuring tool and has provided significant evidence for issues that we seek insights and opportunities for remediation.