“The Dalai Lama, when asked what surprised him most about humanity, he said:
“Man. [and Woman.]
1. Because he/ she sacrifices his/ her health in order to make money.
2. Then he/she sacrifices money to recuperate his/ her health.
3. And then he/she is so anxious about the future that he/she does not enjoy the present; the result being that he/she does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he/she is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.””
Just think about it for a second. The three elements that are listed are shockingly true. It does seem depressing that we all tend to live like this. Some people try not live in such a way but are unsuccessful because these three elements are just parts of mankind’s natural mentality.
I wonder which of the theories that we have studied could help us move away from these three issues?
Plato would claim that we sacrifice our health for money because we have imbalanced souls that are letting desire rule so we have started to live for money rather than happiness and health.
Next, Aristotle might say that we are not living with regard to the Golden Mean; thus we desire more money than health and are concerned with the future because of our need for acquiring everything in excess.
Thus, Plato and Aristotle seems to be in agreement with the Dalai Lama and their theories help explain why mankind is invested in such a mindset. They do not actually help us move away from this desirous and future- focused mental state.
Let’s move to Epicureanism. If we applied Epicurean ideas to the quote, one may be less inclined to make sacrifices that would cause pain because of the emphasis that the Epicureans place on atarxia and aponia.
Next, I think that applying Stoic ideas to this could help. The sacrifices made for money would be eliminated if we were living in accord with nature without stepping out of those boundaries. That is, we would not make any sort of sacrifices because forced sacrifices would not be in accord with natural laws.
Maybe we can apply Kantian duty ethics that are focused only on the motive itself. Through acting based on the motives, we will be able to not be worried about the future or think of the past but simply live in the present by analyzing our present motives.
I feel like Utilitarianism would cause of us to remain with these human problems; through Utilitarianism we are acting with regard to consequences therefore we would still be thinking about the future and possibly die without truly having lived.
I may be incorrect in my characterization of the application of these theories in relation to the Dalai Lama’s response. That is why I want to ask which one of the theories you think would potentially help us move away from these three problems that are all a part of mankind’s essence and mentality?
Hey Manali, thank you very much for your post. Indeed, it seems to be very shocking at first sight. But let's take a look at it from a very different perspective. Actually, you already mentioned it above: What if that pursue of making money is part of the human being itself, namely the part that makes us proceed and work on and on and never stop, like any other animal too? Personally, I believe that the Dalai Lama is right when he says that some people exaggerate it - but "show me a theory that cannot be misapplied". In Aristotle's view, this would be an excess of the virtue of a working and diligent man. This excess causes the bad consequences like a "sacrificed body".
ReplyDeleteAristotle's theory does apply for the second problem, as well: A good life means also to be able to live in the moment, finding the golden mean between being to anxious and to relaxed about the future and therefore affecting the present in two bad ways.
What do you think about that?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Dalai Lama claims that we sacrifice health to attain money which we use to reciprocate for better health, and live like we will live forever never really living. The philosophers that we have learned about in class talk about the good life, and how one might live or attain it through ethical values. The Dalai Lama states that health and money are improperly used as a means to attain the good life.
ReplyDeleteIn your utilitarian analysis of this dilemma I feel as if you ignored the fact that utilitarian’s always side with the decision that yields the greatest amount of utility. Utility is defined as the result of an action that creates the most pleasure and the least amount of pain. In the case of the utilitarian the question becomes; does using your health as a means to gain money which is in turn used as a means to regain health result in more utility than not sacrificing your health at all? The Dalai Lama would like one to believe that sacrificing health does not because it would lead to an empty life that had never been lived to the fullest. However, one could also argue through utilitarian calculus that money could lead to happiness and a fulfilled life as well. The Dalai Lama just believes that he has the good life figured all out so he can make those kinds of statements about how to attain it.
I think that contrary to your post, Kantian ethics cannot help us move away from the Dalai Lama's description of humanity. Through acting through a sense of duty, man may not be concerned with the actual consequences in terms of judging the morality of the action, but this does not mean that one would not make sacrifices in order to make money or use money in order to pursue health. What if you feel it is your duty to make money in order to support your family?
ReplyDeleteFlo- That is an interesting application of Aristotle's Golden Mean and I think that you are correct. I didn't think of it like that! Thanks for the comment! I think that it is definitely an excess to be too worried about the future and a deficiency to not be worried at all. Many times people cannot find that balance because it is a very tough one to actually attain. However, I do agree with you and if we were able to truly master that and live in such a balance maybe we can move away from some of what the Dalai Lama claims.
ReplyDeleteBryan - I was confused on how to apply Utilitarianism to this post but as I said I think that Utilitarianism would cause us to remain in these problems because it is focused on the consequences; thus we will stayed focused on the potential future or outcomes. The same would apply if you looked at it from your point of view though about the greatest good. Utiliarian calculus would not move us move away from the problems that Dalai Lama has stated but simply keep us going in circles.
Grace- Thanks for your comment! It is a necessary and strong objection. Here was my point: even if you are going to act through a duty to support your family, I think that duty would be directly related to what is beneficial for the present through your present duty and motive. This will potentially help us be more concerned about the present rather than rushing into the future. Essentially I am saying that whether it be for money or anything else, I think that duty ethics help us focus on the present and be less anxious about the future. That is complete arguable though, obviously.