Most people are concerned with what happens nearby, both geographically and temporally. So many of our thoughts are about what happens in our suburb, our country, our circle of friends, our lifetimes. There’s less care for those who live far away, and almost no thought for people living 10,000 years from now. That’s odd if we claim that we care about the welfare of others, because there are more people living far away, and more people living in the future.

What goes hand-in-hand with this is a tendency to discount any sort of change that doesn’t affect the here-and-now. Hurricane Katrina saw almost $52 billion dollars in government aid. It was saving lives “right here, right now”. In comparison, developing effective ways to combat malaria gets relatively ignored, with a total worldwide funding of only about $2 billion a year. It’s saving lives in the future, of people who are far away.

To put things in perspective, Katrina killed almost two thousand people. Malaria kills 1.2 MILLION people each year. Both are tragedies, but malaria is a tragedy on such a scale that it boggles the mind. Even if it takes us 100 years to effectively fight Malaria, that’s suffering which is now eliminated for the rest of human history. The long term counts. It counts a lot.

I’m not suggesting we ignore our current problems to only look at the future; one of the best ways of improving the future is by improving the present. But we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss projects simply because they won’t come to fruition in our lifetimes. Nor should we dismiss a suggestion just because it “feels wrong”. In the past, organ transplants, pacemakers, and even washing your surgical instruments after performing an autopsy “felt wrong”. For many people today, the thought of same-sex intercourse still “feels wrong”. The human brain is apt to feel disgust and unease at things which are ethically very right.

I would like more people to think how they can make the world—and the future—a better place. To do that, I need them to think about—and often question—their own beliefs. I delight when I find someone who supports their beliefs with evidence, and who accepts counter-evidence that may falsify their beliefs. These are people who are interested in the truth, and the truth is real whether you “believe” in it or not. These are the same people with whom discussing ethics is a delight, since they’re apt to establish a method of analysis that asks “what harm does this cause, and what benefits does it bring?” rather than to simply declare “it feels wrong” or “it feels right”. These are the people who most often have me question and change my own beliefs, and I love them dearly for it.

Unfortunately, our default wiring isn’t set that way, and it’s not hard to see why. If someone sacrifices their child to save the lives of a hundred others, that person is not going to be universally praised; nor are they likely to even feel good about themselves. Yet if we put value on human lives, then clearly saving the lives of a hundred children is superior to saving just one, even if we feel deeply uncomfortable with the scenario posed.

And this brings me to my problem. I would like others to think about things rationally, in terms of harm and benefit, in terms of what overall good can be achieved in the world. I would like people to think about their ethical beliefs, and to question why they feel that way, and whether that’s actually for the best.

In short, I would like for people to be more aware.

That, in itself, is a hard problem. Ignorance is not only comforting, it’s strengthening. If a person believes that same-sex marriage is wrong, or that we should turn refugees away from our borders, or that people with different-coloured skin are inferior, then that person is unlikely to wish to consider evidence. A naive attempt to present them with evidence may even cause them to strengthen their beliefs.

But there’s a deeper problem for me personally, one that makes me feel uneasy. Living in a little bubble, being unaware of the injustices of the world, being unaware of how one contributes to those injustices… it’s nice. Making people more aware doesn’t make them more happy; in fact it often does the reverse. Even if someone says they want to know the truth, even if they say they want to learn how to better question themselves and the world, learning the truth has potential to do personal harm.

It’s for this reason that I will leave someone’s religious beliefs alone, yet still argue passionately that condoms and sex education are a good idea. It’s for this reason I’ll accept the racist comments of a dying person with sympathy and support, yet pointedly question those same beliefs in a healthy individual. If someone has great power to enact change and make the world a better place—but insists on doing the reverse—then I will argue to the limits of what I consider ethical to try and change that.

So if you find me questioning your beliefs—if you find me trying to change your mind—it means that I feel that you have both the intelligence to change and the capacity to make the world a better place if you do so. If I’m trying to convince you that you’re wrong, then I’m most assuredly paying you a compliment. And if you’re able to change my own beliefs in the process, then I will be delighted.

Thank you.

~ Paul