Everyone is ethical

[Redlemon]

I was just reading (for the second time) the novel "Company" by Max Barry. Very funny book, if you like office politics gone horribly wrong. Anyway, there's a quote in there that leapt out at me both times I read the book:

They teach you that people's behavior is guided by their values, right? That's a load of crap... But do I worry about whether every little thing we do is ethical? No, because you can rationalize anything as ethical. You talk to a criminal -- a tax dodger, a serial killer, a child abuser -- and every one of them will justify their actions. Theyl'll explain to you, totally seriously, why they had to do what they did. Why they're still good people. That's the thing; when people talk about the importance of ethics, they never include themselves. The day anyone, anywhere, admits that they personally are unethical, I'll start taking that whole issue seriously.

This just tastes wrong to me... but I can't find a way to argue against it.

Please disprove this quote for me.

[curiousbear]

Lot of people accept they are guilty at one point or the other. That disproves the quote.

People sometimes do right things for wrong reasons. They feel safe doing so. They can easily justify.

Some people some times do wrong things for the right reasons. Some of them are heroes, leaders and legends. Such people even if they have any guilt, it is a meaninful adorable quality.

People who justify things that cause hurt, pain and shame to others, are yet to feel guilty. If they never feel guilty, they are BAD people.

hope you dont mind my lay man philosophy

[Ayashe]

I definitely agree with you that there are good and bad people.. Basically we all have our own code of ethics, they certainly don't all match. We certainly are not all perfect angels, we all make mistakes and have made them. If you go into any courtroom people are in there who will admit that they have made mistakes but they will also justify them as well. I don't agree with everyone's rationalization of their mistake but I suppose you could say that they were following their own code of ethics. Something to ponder anyway.

[Martian]

Simple premise: Nobody embarks upon a course of action they believe to be wrong. They may come to believe it to be wrong later. They may abandon it or regret it. But at the time, in the present, they do not believe that it is the wrong thing to do, or else they wouldn't do it.

Complex conclusion: There are no comic book villains. 'Ethics' is a term that, at it's core, distinguishes right and wrong behaviour. At a subjective level it has no meaning. We can all agree in the abstract that violence is wrong, but we can also agree that some violence is justified. Stealing is wrong, but occasionally necessary. And as soon as we move out of the mental constructs where things can be made black and white, the world gets very muddy very quickly.

This doesn't mean that ethics are meaningless in and of themselves, but the more subjective we get the more obscure the lines become. Eventually we end up with a sort of moral relativism, and the only way we can really create any clear definition of what constitutes 'the right thing to do' is by some sort of consensus.

I can't disprove your quote, because I agree with it. Don't fret though; the existentialist says that life can still be a grand adventure, even if it has no objective meaning.

[curiousbear]

I still disagree

There are many mistakes backed with justification, whose roots are in negligence, greed, laziness, etc. I would consider justifying our deeds as the bigger mistake

[filtherton]

I think that any sort of specific definition of ethical behavior must be based on aesthetics. Maybe a better way to say it would be to say that people define ethical behavior in a way that suits them (even if they don't happen to behave in a congruent way with that definition). That being the case, I think everyone is ethical in the sense that everyone does stuff, and "ethics" is a way that we rationalize the doing of stuff. If one's ethics accept and encourage greed, than it is completely ethical for a person to be greedy.

If you presume that one's actual ethics are reflected in one's actions, then all actions are ethical, even if we consider them to be reprehensible.

[roachboy]

if ethics means anything, it is a way of thinking about self-limitation.
if you understand directing attention toward something, particularly in the form of a project (an action) as involving a means-ends relation, and within that a calculation (at least implicitly) or better a calculus (a set of relations and transforms) then it'd kinda follow that anything can be rationalised---in a way that's a tautology (a project is a project).
ethics would be a meta-consideration: should i do this, should i do that...
but this really is not as easy as the quote in the op would have you think. things get ugly fast:

take a limit-case: the holocaust was administered by perfectly ordinary, nice people who functioned in a bureaucratic setting that enabled them--required them in a sense--to separate their professional "duty" (carrying out of particular functions every day) from a grasp of what that duty was part of, what it tended toward. bounded rationalities, they call this sort of thing: the effects of the way information is split up and transmitted through a bureaucratic apparatus. in principle, it's possible that such a machine could function continuously----raising ethical problems about the End functions as a select mechanism within the machinery--raise questions that violate the rules of the everyday game (the bounded rationality) and you render yourself dysfunctional within the machinery---and given the "industrial reserve army" it'd be easy peasy to find someone to take your place---so the ethical questions that one could or should raise become de facto situational suicide. you could say that most situations, particularly bureaucratic situations (and capitalism is thoroughly bureaucratic), are like this, and the invocation of the holocaust here a way oif indicating that there is NO limit to what can be rationalized (in the psychological sense) as a function of rationalization (in the weberian sense, the bureaucratic sense).

folk like to think in terms of the Lone Cowboy who Stands Up to the Man because they like to fantasize that they would be that Lone Cowboy, but in reality chances are that most people would go along because, frankly, most people like going along and besides it's all too easy to not confront what you're going along with. think about being -american and the implications will become clear---what you de facto collude with as you move through your life, what options there are in terms of dissent, what dissent costs you if you enact it and take it too far in the wrong situation, say. better to dream about celluiloid cowboys: they help you rationalize everyday capitulation.

what this indicates is that the quote in the op starts off as vaguely interesting, but then veers into a stupid place, once the "ethical problems never include the self" business is introduced--as if the Heroic Subject somehow stands outside the rationalities which that same subject internalizes and performs every day, which shape the horizons and in so doing shape the possibilities of thinking self-limitation.

this kind of situation is why some ethicists like deontology--it allows them to pretend that there are absolute duties which are imposed somehow on all of us that would Prevent Bad Things from happening.
this is easier than facing the contrary.

i'm not going to go from here to saying anything about the metaphysics of evil, except to say that for the MOST part, it's a compensatory illusion---but there are evil people, i think. what makes them evil is that they put into motion systems which engender separations that engender more evil to be done, often by perfectly ordinary nice people with lives and houses and gardens and with no particular contradiction entering the picture between what they do and their nice, ordinariness. it is the banality of evil that's the frightening thing, like arendt said once.

[telekinetic]

I will never forget the look on my stupid professor's face when I got in an in-class arguement with her about whether or not the Nazi's were both logical and ethical. She claimed they were neither. I claimed their actions appealed to ethos and logos (and, at the time, pathos), but that in hindsight, any arguements for their actions lacked only pathos.

(note: they were obviously atrocities, but my arguement was that they were atrocities performed very logically and were internally consistent with their ethical standards. If you want to create a master race, and you believe this is something that should be done, then logically and ethically you have to get rid of everyone who does not conform!)

[inBOIL]

I think most people are too ruled by emotion to always do what conforms with their ethics. If you've been pushed too far, it's sometimes easier to accept the emotional consequences of wrongdoing than the emotional consequences of taking a more ethical route. How many people would sacrifice the lives of several innocent strangers to save the life of a loved one, while admitting that their loved one's life is no more valuable than the lives of others? It may be easier to knowingly murder innocent people than to lose someone you care deeply for.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by inBOIL

I think most people are too ruled by emotion to always do what conforms with their ethics. If you've been pushed too far, it's sometimes easier to accept the emotional consequences of wrongdoing than the emotional consequences of taking a more ethical route. How many people would sacrifice the lives of several innocent strangers to save the life of a loved one, while admitting that their loved one's life is no more valuable than the lives of others? It may be easier to knowingly murder innocent people than to lose someone you care deeply for.

All true, but AT THE TIME, it's what needs to happen, and it's the right thing to do. It might be seen as a mistake or overreaction or whatever on later reflection, but I believe that no action is ever taken that isn't seen as Right and Good (or at least Necessary) at the time.

The 9/11 hijackers did everything they did because it was, in their view, right and moral and ethical. It was a good thing to do, in their view, and they were being good people for doing it. Moral, holy, righteous people.

One consequence of this is that arguments over what IS right and moral and ethical are pointless. It's all subjective, and it's insane to argue over the subjective hoping to have the objective arise from it. Not that we don't all do plenty of insane things...

The thing to be inquiring into is the view of the world that GIVES what looks right and moral and ethical. People know in an abstract way that they have a point of view, but they rarely interact with their point of view AS a point of view. For human beings, our point of view is The Truth, and anyone with a different point of view is Wrong. And we "know" better, and that makes zero difference in practical life.

[inBOIL]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

All true, but AT THE TIME, it's what needs to happen, and it's the right thing to do. It might be seen as a mistake or overreaction or whatever on later reflection, but I believe that no action is ever taken that isn't seen as Right and Good (or at least Necessary) at the time.

I don't believe this is necessarily true. I've done things that I knew at the time were illogical; I paused, considered my actions, and then chose to give in to my anger and did something stupid. I knew at the time that what I was doing was stupid, and that I'd later regret it, but I did it anyway. If something like this can happen with illogical actions, why not with immoral actions? Why is it impossible for someone to say 'I know that what I'm about to do is immoral, and that I'm a bad person for doing it, but I'd rather feel the guilt/shame/whatever of being a bad person than feel the pain of losing someone I care about,' while acknowledging that they are acting out of selfishness?

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by inBOIL

If something like this can happen with illogical actions, why not with immoral actions?

This is a poor argument, I think, because while we harbor few illusions that we're logical creatures, we all think we're moral. So while illlogic is acceptable, "I'm bad" isn't.

Of course, we're all playing out some variation on the "I'm bad" story we devised around the age of three anyway.... But we resist that and suppress that so hard, any hint of it is unacceptable and has to be justified away.

NEVER underestimate a human being's capacity for self-delusion. I'm clear I underestimate my own at my peril.

[MSD]

I've done things that I considered unethical because I simply didn't care about the ethical ramifications. When something is seen as trivial or victimless, it's easy to stifle guilt.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by MSD

I've done things that I considered unethical because I simply didn't care about the ethical ramifications. When something is seen as trivial or victimless, it's easy to stifle guilt.

Oh, sure. The justification is "it doesn't really matter". It's technically unethical, but hey. It's a small enough infraction, you're still a good person.

Different shade of the same color.

[Willravel]

Break the social contract and you're unethical. It's a mob decision.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Break the social contract and you're unethical. It's a mob decision.

Yes, ethics is based on a set of social and cultural rules as established by a particular group. Ethics cannot be completely subjective. If anything, I'd say they are more objective when you look at the most basic fears and desires of humanity.

[Willravel]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it objective. It's more like a limited collection of subjective ethics in a given situation. Yeah, there are general shared concerns, beliefs, and fears, but just look at murder. I think it wrong no matter what, but most people think it's okay for protecting one's own life or the lives of others, and some even think it's okay for the government to kill in some circumstances. Objective, by my understanding, is based only in fact, be it popular or not.

I dunno, I think we're on the same page.

[Baraka_Guru]

I think elements of it are objective, which is why I said "more" objective. Individuals respond to things by varying degrees. However, there is something to be said about broad conditions.

For example, I think violence is undesirable to everyone. Those who seem to take pleasure in it are likely to be rather miserable people. Even a basic examination of them would reveal this, I'm sure. And those who use violence as an end to protect what or who is dear to them I don't think get by unaffected.

If you agree that violence is generally undesirable in humans, would this not be objective?

But, yes, I think we're probably on the same page, if not in the same paragraph.

[Willravel]

I think the generalities are troublesome. "Violence" has a million representations. I love boxing and martial arts, for example. I used to compete. It was very violent. That's why I brought up a few different incarnations of murder. I'd say the self-defense thing (kill or be killed) is generally accepted, but is it objective?

[Baraka_Guru]

But this is where objectivity and subjectivity commingle. The violence in competitive sports is between consenting people and is subject to sets of rules, traditions, and limitations, some of which are for safety's sake. And we're back to the social contract. What happens when a competitor breaks one or more of these? Is that undesirable too? What would be made of a boxer who constantly hits below the belt (or bites ears) or a karate competitor who constantly strikes with lethal force?

I would argue that "kill or be killed" is an objective concern because I think the act of killing is one that is a stressor (i.e. it is undesirable). Let's say someone had to kill another person just about every day for the rest of their life to protect their family, would they not find that undesirable? Do you know anyone in the world who would not at least find something uncomfortable about that? Think of the act of killing and of the consequences of not doing it. Does this not exist outside of an individual's personal thoughts on the issue? Is this not something that would affect all human beings regardless?

[Willravel]

Well it's not necessarily a "anyone I know" kinda thing. People I know tend to agree with me. Maybe just a random census? This is getting strange.

soon i'll stop using capital letters, just to mess with people.

[asaris]

Look, just because people disagree about something doesn't mean that it's not objective. Sometimes, it's just a difficulty in measuring. I could disagree with my girlfriend about the distance from here to Baltimore. That doesn't mean that there's not an objective measure of that distance. Similarly, just because we disagree about the exact contours of ethics doesn't mean that ethics are not objective. I'd actually argue the opposite; because we generally agree, but disagree on the specific contours indicates that there's something objective to agree or disagree about (or perhaps what Kant called 'subjective universal').

[roachboy]

couldn't disagreement simply follow from the fact of an assertion rather than from it's content?
i don't see how the contrary can be argued, really, that it follows from the fact of a differend that the question around which it unfolds therefore has a kind of "objective" content.
except to the extent that it exists as a question posed, as an act.

[levite]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Break the social contract and you're unethical. It's a mob decision.

I wouldn't call it a "mob decision," but there is something to the invocation of the social contract. And these days, the social contract is not just local, it is international, and increasingly global.

You may be able to say that everyone acts from their own perceived ethicality, but that doesn't mean their actions are ethical. There are social norms, cultural norms, and I might even argue for a very limited kind of absolute morality. There can be a big difference between what we say constitutes our actions, and what the rest of the world says. And we're not always right. The idea that the individual has no responsibility to the community or to any of his fellow beings is, to my mind, insupportable.

A serial killer might well have a well-thought-out explanation for why their arguments are rational and ethical. Doesn't mean they aren't nutty as Christmas fruitcake, and it doesn't mean their claim of ethicality holds any weight whatsoever.

I'm pretty much willing to say, for example, that murder is wrong. Anytime, anyplace. Notice I say "murder," and not "killing," which might potentially be justifiable. I mean killing someone without justifiable provocation, and with malice aforethought.

I'd say there are a handful of other things that are inevitably wrong, or invariably right. But for the most part, yeah, I'd rely on the social contract. What we, collectively, decide as a society is tolerable, constitutes a general foundation of ethics.

[roachboy]

so wait, i missed the "break the social contract and you're unethical" thing.

so revolution is a priori unethical?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by levite

I'm pretty much willing to say, for example, that murder is wrong. Anytime, anyplace. Notice I say "murder," and not "killing," which might potentially be justifiable. I mean killing someone without justifiable provocation, and with malice aforethought.

The murder thing is a good example for this thread.

I don't believe in justifiable homicide. Does that make me unethical?
-----Added 12/9/2008 at 03 : 24 : 17-----

Originally Posted by roachboy

so wait, i missed the "break the social contract and you're unethical" thing.

I think it's more of a question than a statement of fact. If you break the majority of social contracts, are you behaving unethically?

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by roachboy

so wait, i missed the "break the social contract and you're unethical" thing.

so revolution is a priori unethical?

It depends on the basis and conduct of the revolution in question.

I would imagine that a revolution can be unethical in some respects and ethical in others. Perhaps it must be.

[filtherton]

Depending on your perspective, the social contract is frequently exceedingly unethical.

[levite]

Originally Posted by Willravel

The murder thing is a good example for this thread.

I don't believe in justifiable homicide. Does that make me unethical?

No, of course not. I don't think you can say it's unethical to hold yourself to a higher standard than the one society sets for you.

On the other hand, if you are saying you wish to hold everyone to that standard, and to have justifiable homicide laws stricked from the books, and make every death that results from human action but is not accidental a murder, there you might have a problem. It's not that your motivation-- holding people to a high standard, desiring to eliminate homicides-- might not be ethical, but you would be holding society to a standard that it is impossible to uphold-- at best-- and at worst, might result in unethical behaviors, since perhaps there is such a thing as justifiable homicide.

Laws, which are the legislative and judicial actualization of the social contract, are designed to uphold certain minimum parameters of behavior. That surely doesn't mean that it might not behoove individuals to aim for higher standards yet, but it also behooves the law both to set standards which are reasonably attainable by the majority, and which have a certain degree of flexibility in interpretation, since the risk is always that laws are general but situations are specific.

Thus, when I say that murder is always wrong, but I exclude justifiable homicide, that does not mean I am in favor of people killing one another; only that I believe that there could potentially arise situations which fall into gray areas, even in the realm of homicide.

[Willravel]

So that would mean my ethics (when it comes to murder) are simply more absolutist. Sounds about right to me.

Would it be unethical to break up with someone because they gain weight?
_______________
This thread has questionable ethics.

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by Willravel

The murder thing is a good example for this thread.

I don't believe in justifiable homicide. Does that make me unethical?

Not at all, but in the wrong situation it makes you dead.

Ask any veteran police officer about ethics and they'll give you Rule #1: I'm going home alive tonight.

[Willravel]

I can always run like a Kenyan.

It's just my personal feelings about the value of human life. Taking a sentient life strikes me as deeply wrong, regardless of the circumstances. I've always felt that my life is my own and your life is your own. The only person that should be allowed to end your life is you (and only if you're mentally/emotionally stable).

[levite]

Originally Posted by Willravel

So that would mean my ethics (when it comes to murder) are simply more absolutist. Sounds about right to me.

Would it be unethical to break up with someone because they gain weight?

Probably not unethical, although quite possibly superficial....

Although I suppose it would depend on how much weight: an extra 20 pounds or suchlike is probably something a good relationship partner should just deal with-- suck it up. Gaining like a hundred pounds is probably reflective of some kind of severe psychoemotional trauma, and while it might be a bit more supportive and nurturing to stay with that person to try and help them out of the hole they're in, it would also certainly be understandable to feel unable to deal with that level of trauma in your relationship life.

That's my $0.02, anyway.

[curiousbear]

Willravel, no one owns anyones life. Even you dont own your life. You can live it to the fullest, but cant end it at will. it is still crime. It may be ethical but crime.

Is it possible something ethical turns out to be crime? and/or something that is lawfully correct turns out to be unethical?

[abaya]

Originally Posted by levite

Probably not unethical, although quite possibly superficial....

Although I suppose it would depend on how much weight: an extra 20 pounds or suchlike is probably something a good relationship partner should just deal with-- suck it up. Gaining like a hundred pounds is probably reflective of some kind of severe psychoemotional trauma, and while it might be a bit more supportive and nurturing to stay with that person to try and help them out of the hole they're in, it would also certainly be understandable to feel unable to deal with that level of trauma in your relationship life.

That's my $0.02, anyway.

I've been thinking about a question related to this, recently. Not about the gaining weight, or about breaking up, but... okay, let me just get it out there:

So it took us a long time to make new friends when we moved here. We were so happy to make new friends at first, especially other couples, that we didn't really care that much about what kind of people they were. We just enjoyed hanging out together and getting to know each other, as we were all new in this country.

One of these couples just got married, and it turns out that they spent $50,000 on their wedding. Yeah, $50K. This is simply unfathomable to me. We got together the other night and they showed us their photos, and it was all extremely fancy. I have never known anyone, in any of my social circles, who would have had a wedding with that kind of price tag. It kind of blew me away, and made me re-evaluate whether these friends of ours were really people that I could connect with. The use of that much money, for one day, just spoke volumes about their personal ethics, I guess... and that bothers me.

Of course, I can't really "break up" with them--we might be leaving soon anyway, so we won't stay in very good touch regardless, after that--but the question is, is it shallow of me to judge their character and "friendability" to me, based on how they spend their money? Is it more of a class thing than anything else? I've always thought that I didn't care if people were wealthy or not, as long as they didn't spend it exhorbitantly or flash it around a lot... and most people I knew, didn't. This is the first case I have seen where they really just threw $50,000 down the wedding drain--poof, gone in one day--okay, let's go buy a house now, because yes, they can afford that, too.

It bothers me, the way people spend their money. It signals what their ethics are, to me. Something along the lines of, "Where your treasure/money is, there will your heart be, also." My husband doesn't quite get why I am so concerned about other people's money spending--he is less judgmental than I am, and he feels that if people want to spend their money, then they can spend it however they want--but I decide whether or not I want to invest in a friendship, based on people's financial ethics. I am not a relativist when it comes to this. I think there are right ways to spend money/be wealthy, and there are wrong ways--and $50K on one day of your life, is not ethical in any way, shape, or form. I don't care how rich you are.

Thoughts?

[roachboy]

how is this not an aesthetic question?
just wondering.

[inBOIL]

Abaya, what would you rather they do with their money? Would it be better for them to just let it sit in investments? Spend it on a larger, but still not ostentatious house? While it isn't how you would spend the money, (or me, for that matter) it did spread the money to others who provided the goods and services to make that wedding happen. If we eliminated frivolous and ostentatious spending, a lot of people would be out of a job.

It bothers me, the way people spend their money. It signals what their ethics are, to me. Something along the lines of, "Where your treasure/money is, there will your heart be, also."

It might be that they want certain things, and are fortunate enough to have the money to make that happen. To use a different example, suppose someone loves to travel and spends a great deal of money visiting all kinds of exotic places. Not luxury travel, but a lot of economy flights. Are they buying happiness? Is it irresponsible or unethical to spend money on travel when you could instead use it to put a down payment on a house and live a more traditional life?

[levite]

Originally Posted by roachboy

how is this not an aesthetic question?
just wondering.

No, I totally get it, and I don't think it's purely an aesthetic question. Abaya seems to be saying clearly that she has a moral problem with anyone who would, in a world with so many lacks, so many causes, so many in need, spend a truly obscene amount of money throwing a party-- because let's face it, that's really all a wedding is: a party for a lot of people, most of whom aren't all that close to the bride and groom.

This is, IMO, a perfectly reasonable question to ask. What kind of people would spend that kind of money on a party, rather than donate it to charity, give it to causes they believe in, or at worst, just invest it for their future children or their retirement? What kind of priorities does that choice signify? What kind of values system do these people really have?

Those are sound questions. Whether you, Abaya, should go through with "dumping" them as friends...I don't know. I think this has to be set in measurement against the whole relationship you've had with them. Everyone is entitled to at least one stunningly bad choice: maybe this is theirs. But it's fair to be seriously considering it, at least.

[roachboy]

levite--i should i suppose have said that i didn't think the questions not interesting or sound--i just don't think they're ethical questions--the problem seems to be a violation of a sense of propriety--to my mind that's a matter of symmetry--a question of fit, say. i'm not sure about this next bit, but it seems like that could be a fit between class position (though it's hard to say whose) and actions. this symmetry or correspondence is at bottom an aesthetic matter. ethics comes in as a way of talking about violation in this context.

and i don't really know what i'd do were i in your position, abaya. if i was inclined to not like these people for other reasons but couldn't find a reason to act on it, i'd probably use this. but if i wasn't so inclined, i wouldn't have a particular reaction in principle. weddings are strange things.
generally, they're about the display of a sense of class position, often more on the part of parents than on the part of who is getting married.
either way, i figure let them have the party that they want to have.
i find bad music at the reception far more bothersome than the amount of money splashed out on a wedding, but i'm just like that.
i like parties.
and when the revolution comes, the parties will all be better.

[Johnny Rotten]

I think everyone has the capacity for self-delusion, but I think some people also have a substantial neurological lack of humanity. Those serial killers and child abusers are very commonly sociopaths. In a very real, psychiatric way, they do not have the capacity for guilt or fear. They don't even take particular joy in their crimes, either. It's just something they do because they wanted to do it. They understand that *other* people can feel guilt and fear, and they see this as a weakness, rather than an aspect of the "normal" human mind.

And I think people *are* guided by their values. But values are taught. If those people aren't taught those values and disciplined when they fall short, then bad habits can develop. If they get away with it and reap the rewards, they're likely to do it again, even when they know it's "wrong."

This is, IMO, a perfectly reasonable question to ask. What kind of people would spend that kind of money on a party, rather than donate it to charity, give it to causes they believe in, or at worst, just invest it for their future children or their retirement? What kind of priorities does that choice signify? What kind of values system do these people really have?

The cynic in me says that there are aspects of human nature that we resist acknowledging. The amateur cultural anthropologist in me says that the human mind was just not designed to think on a global scale. We think tribally. I mean, look at all the different nations, religious sects, and various clubs that blanket the world. Heck, we're talking in a "club" right now. We're a tribal people trying to exist in a global environment. We have to segment and compartmentalize the world; break it down into digestible elements to understand it.

So the distance of future generations is often beyond our human minds, and the suffering of starving people in Africa may as well be happening on Mars. Because not only are those people far away, but they have no access to the global village, like radio stations, Web sites, TV channels. They are effectively cut off from the world, out of sight and out of mind.