A thought on Judgement Day

I read an article today called "Judgement Day" by Louis Pascal. He is a true pessimist, and a true utilitarian as well. I somehow very depressed after reading his work. I feel like am killing people every second.

There are still two points worth thinking. The first one is about his friend's saying "I have done my share". In calculating people's share of overpopulation volunteer work, Pascal claims that we should subtract those who are not able to help and those who are not willing to help. I agree with him about the "not able" part, but I am not sure about the "not willing" one. According to Pascal, his friend's share of volunteer work is really really heavy, since there are a significant number of people who are actually not willing to help. However, can the "not willing" rule off their responsibility? We are all morally obliged to the society and our responsibility should not be determined subjectively. For example, I and three girls share an apartment and we agree that everybody do the bathroom duty for one week. In accordance with Pascal, if I am not willing to do my duty, then the other three girls should share the bathroom duty and they cannot count my responsible for that. It doesn't make sense.

The other point I would like to comment on is about the isolated island example. Pascal maintains that feeding and suppling medical care to sick people causes more pain, and he gives an example with figures. The calculation and the logic seems to be fine, but I somehow feel it wired. After reading other's comments, I realized that what Pascal stated may be true, but it covers a wide range which could be from the very beginning of human kind to the end of it. Our generation, however, were just a spot on the line. When we are looking at the big picture, I agree that he is right. Nevertheless when I was somewhere on the line, I feel guilty for my whole life for not saving those people. This is really a paradox. What should we do?

Here I quote: (I highlight some arguments that seem appealing to me)

Disturbing
russian1984
2005-06-13 05:05 pm UTC (link)

I find Louis Pascal’s judgment day to be very disturbing. He is as pessimistic of a writer as I have ever seen. He criticizes every single human being as being selfish because we don’t help people of lower quality life or share our wealth. His communistic views are portrayals of his mental instability. To call him an idiot would be like calling Hitler a little insane. He blames the people of the United States for not providing donations to other countries. Louis refers to us as “murderers” because he thinks we are responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the world. When we try to help other countries by providing food, he claims that this will cause more people to die because there are more people existing to die. Reading this passage was like reading a non fiction book written by a psychopath on the verge of suicide. Since he claims that we are responsible for the death of millions, I would be the least saddened if he was one of those upon the millions.

Re: Disturbing
wartis
2005-06-14 03:36 pm UTC (link)

I agree with you in saying that the passage "Judgment Day", by Louis Pascal is rather disturbing. But I am not sure if it is rational to completely discredit his argument. Pascal's argument is well supported with facts of overpopulation, but his approach in relaying his argument is rather harsh and pessimistic. Overpopulation is a growing epidemic that needs to be addressed. I feel as though many may be offended by this passage because of its harsh reality. Some of his opinions are a little extreme by him him going as far as to say that we are murderers. His analogies in the beginning as he asked the audience questions, were disturbing because they held to some truth. There is a reason to Pascal's approach, as he aims to make the reader feel guilty. I personally felt somewhat guilty after reading the essay, and in turn, I wanted to do something about it. This article brought the problem to the forefront and made the issues personal. The problem of overpopulation may never be solved, but Pascal's essay may spark an interest in its readers to try to improve upon the problem.

Judgement Day
jacks14
2005-06-13 05:48 pm UTC (link)

It is hard for me to say that I completely disagree with Louis Pascal's views on overpopulation because he seems to have enough facts to support the idea that there is a huge problem that is not getting any better, and besides his facts, it has been known for a while that this is a problem in our world. However, I have some issues with what Louis Pascal suggests as a solution to the overpopulation problem, a policy of blanket refusal of aid, which he says in the long run will cause less suffering then by providing aid. It may be possible that in the long run Louis Pascal is right, but how long is it that aid should be withheld? When will it be safe to start helping the less fortunate and third world countries out again? And what really bothers me about the idea is, why should those who are wealthy, well off, or simply lucky enough to have been born into a stable family, have more of a right to live then those who are much less fortunate, poor, and were unlucky to have been born in a third world country?
I think a much better solution is to educate people, everywhere, about the overpopulation problem, about different forms of birth control, keeping family sizes smaller and why that is so important especially where many people are starving to death. Just withholding aid and letting thousands of people die will not teach anyone about how to continue to avoid the problem in the future.

maria10
2005-06-14 11:01 am UTC (link)

According to Louis Pascel’s “Judment Day”, one who does not donate all of his money in excess of what he needs to survive in terms of food, is considered a murder. I found the statistical information he provided on the world’s population and the number of people, who die of starvation each year much higher than what I could have ever imagined. The statistical information, included the world’s population at 3 ½ billion and amongst them 10-20 million will die each year, which averaged out to 350 human beings and amongst them 1-2 would die each year of hunger. I feel this statistical information is extremely meaningful, but also very unfortunate, but should serve the purpose Pascel intended that is to generate an impulse amongst human beings to contribute a proportion of their own money to lower the number of people, who die each year of starvation. I felt that Pascal took an extreme position in calling those, who do not donate all of their money in excess of what the need for their essential nutritional needs to be “murders” and “rapists”. I thought these words were too harsh, especially, without his consideration of how many people or Americans, and our government already contributes money towards organizations that aid hunger in impoverished countries. I think that each person, should feel a moral obligation or urgency to donate money to this cause, but I don’t think someone should be explicitly told exactly how much to donate and go as far as to tell them to remain in a status of poorness for the reminder of their existence. In addition, yes, people should help but it is also extreme for Pascal not to consider how much a person scarifies for his own family to provide them with the tools to ensure they too have an opportunity to be self sufficient in the world possibly by means of a college education etc. This would be impossible, if Pascal insinuates that one must donate all of his money in excess of what he needs himself to survive. Pascal is not factoring in the struggle of those individuals and what they need to undergo to earn their income. In some cases, that individual may need to work long hour days or two-three jobs out of his responsibility to provide the best for his family. Should this person then be obligated to give it all away? I personally have donated money to organizations, which aid hunger out of my own free will and am offended by his insinuation that I am a murder, because I may not have donated enough money in accordance to his standards. I think that his argument should generate an urgency in people to contribute their money to aid this cause, which is taking an astounding number of lives each year, but it should be done out of their own moral obligation. I think Pascal’s standards are just too high and unreasonable. In addition, if he forces American to donate all of their excess money, which is not used for basic nutritional needs, what will happen to our economy? If everyone stops reinvesting in our economy, then it will deteriorate, cause a lack of jobs, which will lead our nation into an impoverished state. Thus, America would then become another nation which Pascal addresses in his speech, and we would no longer be in a position to help anyone. We would just be aggravating an already terrible problem.