“Ignorance is bliss” Everyone says it. But do they really believe what it’s says? Do they examine what they’re saying? The answer is, usually, no. They don’t think about what it truly means because “everyone” else says it and does not think about what it means. As Mark Twain suggests, man, usually, conforms to his society’s views, taking on opinions without rationalizing them for himself.
While in some situations, ignorance can be bliss, we can never be completely ignorant; otherwise we would cease to function. For example, if someone were to be dropped from the sky completely ignorant of everything, he might look at a bus coming down the road toward him and have heart failure. Even worse, he might look in the mirror and kill over, who knows. Okay, now here’s less extreme example. Someone does not know of world hunger organizations. Let’s even go further; they don’t know of world hunger and that people are dying in different countries all over the world. Now, if this person does not know of this sadness, then they won’t be as sorrowful as that of the people that know. But on the other hand, one can argue that not knowing is just as sorrowful as knowing. If one does not know, then they can not help and if they can not help then they are letting people die, when they could be saving lives. Therefore, the question arises, Is it more sorrowful to not help or help? I think most would agree that it is more sorrowful to let people starve and die. In theory, one would be exchanging their happiness for another’s. You would be unhappy because you know, but by helping someone, you make them less miserable. And because your helping someone, you receive joy, most likely, and therefore regain happiness. Therefore, to answer the question plainly, no. I do not believe that "ignorance is bliss" in all cases.
1 comment:
I see where you are coming from however I disagree to a certain point. Sometimes I think that ignorance can be bliss such as in your example of world hunger. Just by 1 individual donating to the cause, it does not completely exterminate world hunger. Therefore no matter how much money and time you give to the organization, the problem is still going to exist. Then you still are in a "state of confusion/helplessness" as there are thousands of organizations that try to combat world hunger and you can be lost trying to decide which one is best.
Also, I think that sometimes it is best not to know about certian world calamities because there is no way that one individual can help them all.
How does one decide to give money to world hunger, but not the AIDS crisis? Or, how does one decide to give aid to Tsunami victims and not Hurricane Katrina?
In the end, I think it is best to give where you feel the most good will be done for organizations that you as an individual respect. By knowing all the world problems people might not give at all knowing that there money might possibly go to waste or there money is spread to thin amongst the millions of organizations trying to help.
I agree with you saying that if no one knows about world hunger then no one will support the cause however, I think it is impossible to get EVERY person in the world to focus on that one cause. Everyone has different causes that they support (Muscular Distrophy, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkensons, ect) and as long as there are people that strongly believe in each, then a rather equal amount will be given to each charity. You can call this being naive or ignorant of other important causes but I feel that it is just being selective of where your aid goes; knowing in the back of your ming that you CANNOT help them all.
Therefore, I think that ignorance to some world problems can be bliss so the aid gets distributed where people think it will best be spread. This in turn helps numerous causes and numerous charities. Without this "selfish" charity giving, all aid would go to a single cause that in the end can NEVER be eliminated or people would be left helpless feeling that they never have enough money or time to give to help them and and decide to do nothing, which is the worst scenario.
---:)---ekodonne
Post a Comment