Philosophy

The influence of Kant’s philosophical sketch of perpetual peace

Today, the world is a far different place than it was when Kant wrote his essay on perpetual peace. In the intervening centuries, we have witnessed the rise and fall of empires, the advent of democracy, two world wars, and the birth of the nuclear age. Yet despite all these changes, Kant’s vision of perpetual peace remains as relevant as ever. In his essay, Kant argues that lasting peace is possible only if nations adhere to certain principles, such as respect for human rights and international law. He also proposes a number of institutions that he believes are essential for preserving peace, including a league of nations and a system of international criminal courts. While some of Kant’s ideas may seem outdated, his sketch of perpetual peace nonetheless provides an important blueprint for achieving our modern-day quest for a world without war.

The three maxims of perpetual peace

In “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” Kant put forth three maxims for securing eternal peace among nations. First, he argued that states should form republican governments. Second, he proposed that international agreements should be kept and that there should be a right to asylum. Lastly, Kant argued that nations should stop expanding their territories. Though these ideas may have seemed radical at the time, they have since been adopted by many countries and organisations around the world. Today, the United Nations has 193 member states, all of which have committed to working towards peace and security within their borders and beyond. In light of this, it is clear that Kant’s maxims continue to hold relevance in today’s global community.

There are a few criticisms of Kant’s sketch of perpetual peace. One is that it relies too heavily on reason, and not enough on emotion. Another is that it doesn’t account for the fact that people are often irrational. Finally, some people argue that Kant’s ideas are too idealistic and that they wouldn’t work in the real world. However, these criticisms don’t take away from the fact that Kant’s sketch is a fascinating thought experiment. It’s still worth considering what a world might look like if we all followed his principles. Who knows, maybe one day we’ll actually achieve perpetual peace!

The idea of a cosmopolitan federation

In his influential 1795 work “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” German philosopher Immanuel Kant put forth the idea of a cosmopolitan federation as a means of achieving perpetual peace. The federation would be composed of representatives from various nations, and its primary purpose would be to arbitrate disputes between different states. Kant believed that such a system would incentivise states to resolve their differences peacefully, as the use of force would likely lead to expulsion from the federation. In addition, the federal government would have the power to enforce its decisions, ensuring that all member states complied with the terms of peace agreements. While Kant’s sketch was merely a thought experiment, his idea of a cosmopolitan federation continues to resonate with those who seek a more peaceful world.

Cosmopolitanism is a way of thinking that emphasizes the interconnectedness of all people and cultures. In cosmopolitan thinking, we see ourselves not as citizens of one nation or members of one culture, but as members of the human race. We view the world not as a collection of isolated countries, but as a global community. This way of thinking has its origins in ancient Greece, where it was first articulated by the philosopher Diogenes. Cosmopolitanism has been embraced by thinkers throughout history, from the Roman Stoics to modern-day philosophers like Jürgen Habermas. Today, cosmopolitanism is more important than ever, as we face global challenges like climate change and pandemics that require international cooperation. By embracing cosmopolitan thinking, we can build a better future for all.

Kant’s legacy and relevance today

In his groundbreaking work, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, Kant proposed a plan for how different nations could live together in peace. Over two hundred years later, his ideas are still studied and debated by scholars. Kant’s vision of perpetual peace was based on the belief that reason, rather than force, should be used to settle conflicts between nations. He also believed that all nations should have a republican form of government, in which the people elect their leaders. Furthermore, he thought that nations should respect the sovereignty of other nations and refrain from interfering in their affairs. Although Kant’s ideas were radical at the time, they have served as the foundation for many important international treaties and organisations, such as the United Nations. As we continue to grapple with the challenges of international conflict, Kant’s legacy remains as relevant as ever.

The idea of perpetual peace has been around for centuries, but it has taken on new meaning in recent years. In the past, the concept was often used to describe a future utopia where all war would come to an end. Today, however, the term is used more broadly to refer to any situation in which conflict is absent. This could include a world where all nations are democratically governed, or a world where economic inequality has been eliminated. Whatever the form it takes, the goal of perpetual peace remains the same: to create a lasting state of harmony between different groups. While this may seem like a daunting task, there is reason to believe that it is achievable. With each passing year, we seem to be making strides towards a more peaceful world. Who knows? Perhaps one day we will achieve perpetual peace after all.

Moral Philosophy: Crash Course

Moral philosophy is the study of right and wrong conduct. It is also sometimes called ethics. Philosophers debate what is good or bad behaviour, and why we should act in certain ways. Many people think that philosophical questions about morality are difficult or impossible to answer. Some philosophers think that morality cannot be derived from any one approach, but must be considered from all three perspectives. Debates about moral philosophy can be both fascinating and frustrating! But ultimately, asking these types of question can help us to live better lives. As a discipline, moral philosophy can be divided into three main branches; meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.

Meta Ethics

Meta ethics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of ethical judgment and the meaning of ethical terms. It is distinct from normative ethics, which deals with how one ought to act, and applied ethics, which deals with specific ethical issues. Meta ethics is primarily concerned with the question of what it means to say that something is “good” or “bad.” Are moral judgments simply expressions of personal preference, or do they correspond to objective facts about the world? This is known as the question of moral realism, and it has been debated by philosophers for centuries. While there is no consensus on the answer to this question, meta ethics remains an important area of philosophical inquiry.

Normative Ethics

Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with how we ought to live. In other words, it’s concerned with the question of what is good or bad, right or wrong. There are three major schools of thought within normative ethics: consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

Deontological theories of ethics are those that focus on the intentions or character of the agent rather than on the consequences of the action. Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory is an example of a deontological theory. Kant believed that we should always act in such a way that we can will our actions to become universal law. In other words, we should only do things that we could reasonably expect everyone else to do in the same situation.

Consequentialism is the view that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. The classic example of a consequentialist ethical theory is utilitarianism, which holds that the morally right action is the one that maximises happiness for all people affected by the action.

Virtue ethics is an approach to ethics that focuses on developing good character traits, such as honesty, courage, and compassion. Aristotle’s ethical theory is an example of a virtue ethics theory. Aristotle believed that there are two types of virtues: those that relate to the intellect, and those that relate to the emotions. The intellectual virtues include wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. The emotional virtues include courage, temperance, and justice. In order for a person to live a good life, he or she must develop all of these virtues. Aristotle believed that the best way to develop virtue was to imitate the virtuous behaviour of others. He also believed that virtue could be taught through education and training. As a result, Aristotle’s virtue ethics has had a significant influence on educational philosophy.

Applied Ethics

Applied ethics is the study of ethical questions that arise in specific contexts, such as the workplace, the doctor-patient relationship, or environmental conservation. It is often contrasted with abstract ethical theories, which focus on general principles rather than specific situations. When faced with an ethical dilemma, an applied ethicist will typically consider the consequences of different courses of action before making a decision. For example, a business ethicist may weigh the pros and cons of implementing a new environmental policy, taking into account the financial cost, the impact on employees, and the effect on the company’s reputation. Applied ethics is a dynamic and interdisciplinary field that draws on philosophy, psychology, sociology, and other disciplines to shed light on ethical issues in the real world.

Other key areas of ethics

Utilitarian VS Deontological Approaches to Human rights

When it comes to ethical decision-making, there are many different schools of thought. One approach is rights-based ethics, which focuses on the rights of individuals and groups. According to this perspective, everyone has certain rights that must be respected. For example, everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. This means that no one should be killed, enslaved, or tortured. Additionally, everyone has the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion. This means that people should be able to speak their minds and practice their religion without fear of retribution. Rights-based ethics is a powerful approach to moral decision-making, and it can help us create a fairer and more just world. But how do two major competing moral theories deal with human rights?

When it comes to ethical decision-making, there are two main schools of thought: consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialists believe that the morally right thing to do is the one that will produce the best outcome, while deontologists hold that there are certain actions that are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of their consequences.

There are pros and cons to both approaches. Consequentialism is often criticized for being too cold and calculating, as it can lead to decisions that sacrifice individual rights for the greater good. However, proponents of consequentialism argue that this is a necessary evil in some cases, and that the ends always justify the means. Deontology, on the other hand, is sometimes criticized for being too inflexible, as it can lead to bad outcomes if rigorously followed. However, deontologists maintain that there are some things that we simply shouldn’t do, even if it would result in a net positive.

At the end of the day, it’s up to each individual to decide which approach they want to take. There’s no right or wrong answer, and both approaches have their own merits. Whichever one you choose, it’s useful to see what they look like when applied to human rights:

Consequentialism

Consequentialist ethics is the branch of ethics that evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its consequences. The main principle of consequentialism is that the end always justify the means – in other words, if the outcome of an action is good, then the action itself is good. This type of ethical system is often contrasted with deontological ethics, which judge the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its adherence to a set of rules or principles. The most famous advocates of consequentialism are probably utilitarians like John Stuart Mill, who argued that actions should be evaluated based on their ability to promote happiness. Other consequentialist theories have been put forward by philosophers like Peter Singer and Peter Unger. In general, consequentialist ethics tends to be more popular with theorists than with the general public – after all, it can be hard to sell the idea that “the end justifies the means.” Nevertheless, consequentialism remains a powerful and influential approach to ethical decision-making.

This approach has been used to justify a wide range of actions, from environmental conservation to lying in certain circumstances. When it comes to human rights, consequentialists typically argue that we should focus on promoting the greatest amount of happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people. This might mean sacrificing the rights of a few individuals if it would lead to a net increase in happiness. For instance, a government might justification taking away someone’s right to free speech if it would prevent a violent uprising. While this approach has its critics, many consequentialists believe that it offers the best way to protect human rights in the long run.

Deontology

Deontological ethics is the branch of ethics that focus on the rightness or wrongness of actions, regardless of the consequences. The word “deontology” comes from the Greek word for duty, and deontological ethical theories are sometimes also called duty-based ethical theories. Deontologists believe that there are certain things that we ought to do, regardless of whether they lead to good outcomes or not. For example, most people believe that it is always wrong to murder innocent people, even if doing so would lead to some greater good. Deontological ethical theories are usually contrasted with consequentialist ethical theories, which focus on the goodness or badness of consequences rather than on the rightness or wrongness of actions. Many modern ethicists, including some who are otherwise sympathetic to deontology, believe that deontological ethical theories have some serious problems. For one thing, it can be difficult to figure out what our duties are.

When looking at the issue of human rights, deontologists tend to focus on the intentions behind an action rather than the outcome. In other words, they believe that it is more important to act in a way that upholds human dignity and autonomy, even if this does not always lead to the best outcome. For example, a deontologist might argue that it is always wrong to torture someone, even if doing so would save lives. This is because torture violates the basic rights of the individual and is therefore intrinsically evil. Of course, this perspective does not always lead to easy answers, but it does provide a clear moral framework for addressing complex issues.

The deontological approach to human rights is based on the belief that everyone has certain inherent rights that must be respected. This approach was first articulated by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who argued that we have a duty to protect the rights of others even if it goes against our self-interest. Kant believed that human rights were universal and could not be taken away by any government or individual. The deontological approach has been influential in shaping modern human rights law, which guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty, and security of person. In recent years, the deontological approach has been criticised for its lack of flexibility, as it does not take into account the complexities of individual situations. However, it remains a powerful theory that continues to shape our understanding of human rights.

Martin Luther King: A Religious Virtue Ethicist

When it comes to normative ethical theories, there are two main camps: consequentialist and deontological. Consequentialist theories, such as utilitarianism, focus on the outcomes of actions. The right thing to do is the action that will produce the most good or the least amount of harm. In contrast, deontological theories, such as Kantianism, focus on the intentions behind actions. The right thing to do is the action that upholds our duty, regardless of the consequences. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are the most commonly-cited normative ethical theories. The other, lesser-cited normative ethical theory is virtue ethics.

What is Virtue Ethics

The origins of virtue ethics can be traced back to the ancient Greeks. Aristotle, in particular, developed a form of virtue ethics that emphasised the role of character in promoting moral behaviour. According to Aristotle, virtues are habits that enable us to act in accordance with our telos, or “purpose.” For example, the virtue of courage helps us to act bravely in the face of danger, while the virtue of temperance helps us to control our desires and appetites. By developing virtuous character traits, we can become better people and lead more fulfilling lives. The philosophy of virtue ethics remained popular for centuries, and was later revived by thinkers such as Alasdair MacIntyre and Bernard Williams. Today, it continues to be a major approach within moral philosophy.

Most religious leaders are deontological, meaning they believe that actions are right or wrong based on whether they adhere to a set of rules or principles. This perspective is often rooted in the belief that there is a higher power that has laid out these rules and that we must follow them in order to achieve salvation or enlightenment. This way of thinking places a strong emphasis on duty and obedience, and it often leads to religious leaders taking a very black-and-white view of right and wrong. While this perspective can be inflexible at times, it does provide a clear moral compass that can be helpful in guiding people’s actions. Additionally, deontological ethics often emphasise the importance of taking personal responsibility for one’s actions, which is something that most religious leaders can get behind.

Kingian Virtue Ethics

When most people think of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., they think of his work as a civil rights leader. But King was also a philosopher, and he based his civil rights work on philosophical principles. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister, and he was heavily influenced by his religious beliefs, and he often drew upon Biblical themes in his speeches and writings. In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” for example, Dr. King invoked the story of the Good Samaritan to argue that people have a moral obligation to help those who are suffering. Religion also played a role in Dr. King’s commitment to nonviolent resistance; as a Christian, he believed that violence was contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Something that is particularly interesting about King’s philosophy is that his ethics and philosophy aren’t the biblically grounded duty-based deontological ethics we would expect from a religious leader, but they were influenced by virtue ethics, and centred around character development and the cultivation of good habits. According to virtue ethics, the goal of ethical behaviour is not simply to follow rules or achieve good outcomes, but to become a good person. This is the kind of person who has developed virtues like courage, compassion, and wisdom. For King, achieving racial justice was not just a matter of passing laws or changing social institutions; it was also about helping people to develop virtuous characters. By working to build virtuous character traits in others, King believed that he could help create a more just and compassionate society.

“Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood”
King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”

Kings virtue ethics present as a kind of secularised form of religious ethics— while the virtues we ought to aspire to might align with readings of religious texts and what the Bible suggests makes a good person, the qualities that King advocates can also be adopted whether you believe in or agree with Christianity.

What we can learn from Kingian Virtue Ethics

While discussions of how we ought to live morally are typically shaped by the two competing theories of consequentialism and deontology, with consequentialist theories focusing on the consequences of actions, and deontological theories focus on the duties and obligations that people have; it’s also important to consider how virtue ethics— which focuses on the character of the morally good person, rather than on the rightness or wrongness of specific actions— might influence our work as changemakers.

There are some key ways in which virtue ethics differs from consequentialist and deontological ethics. First, virtue ethics is not as concerned with rules and regulations as consequentialist and deontological theories are. Second, virtue ethics emphasises the importance of developing virtuous character traits, such as courage and compassion, rather than simply following rules. Finally, virtue ethics is often less concerned with specific actions than with the overall character of the person carrying out those actions. All three types of ethical theory have their own strengths and weaknesses, and there is no one “correct” ethical theory. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide which type of ethical theory makes the most sense to them.

Unlike other ethical theories, which focus on what we ought to do, virtue ethics focuses on what kind of people we ought to be. The central question for virtue ethicists is not “What should I do in this situation?” but “What kind of person should I be?” To answer this question, virtue ethicists look to the virtues, or good character traits, that are important for human flourishing. Examples of virtues include courage, compassion, and wisdom. One way to think about virtues is as habits of thought and action that enable us to achieve our goals in life. For example, a courageous person is not afraid to stand up for what she believes in, even in the face of danger. A compassionate person is someone who feels empathy for others and is motivated to help them. And a wise person is able to make sound decisions based on a deep understanding of the situation. Virtue ethics emphasises that developing virtuous character traits is essential for living a good life. Given the significant change that Martin Luther Kings’ work was able to influence for the civil rights movement, perhaps as contemporary changemakers we ought to consider the place of virtue in our movements.

“What is your life’s blueprint?” Life design according to Martin Luther King Jr

Martin Luther King, and his philosophy of non-violence is largely influenced by virtue ethics, a philosophical theory that emphasises the role of character and virtue in moral decision making. Virtue ethics is often contrasted with other ethical frameworks that focus on what actions are right or wrong. Instead, virtue ethics is concerned with how you live your life. The basic idea is that there are certain virtues that are essential to a good life, and that by developing these virtues, you will become a good person. This might sound like a simple task, but it’s actually quite difficult. Virtue ethics requires that you think about your life as a whole and strive to develop the virtues that are most important to you. It’s not enough to simply do the right thing in any given situation; you also need to have the right attitude and approach to life. Virtue ethics is about becoming the best person you can be, and that’s a lifelong journey.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “If you don’t have a blueprint for your life, you will become part of someone else’s.” This is an important statement that applies to everyone, no matter what age or stage of life they are in. A blueprint is a plan or a set of guidelines that helps you achieve your goals. It can be something as simple as a list of things you want to do before you die, or it can be a detailed plan of action for how you’re going to achieve your dreams. Either way, having a blueprint gives you a sense of direction and purpose. It helps you stay focused on what’s important, and it gives you something to look back on when you feel like you’re lost. In one of his speeches, King discusses with his young audience the importance of having a blueprint in life, and provides three key things that ought to make up our life’s blueprint.

“Now, each of you is in the process of building the structure of your lives. And the question is whether you have a proper, a solid and a sound blueprint, and I want to suggest some of the things that should be in your life’s blueprint…”

“A deep belief in your own dignity, your own worth, and your own-ness…

Don’t allow anybody to make you feel that you are nobody. Always feel that you count, always feel that you have worth and always feel that your life has ultimate significance.”

We all have moments in our lives where we feel good about ourselves and others where we don’t. When we feel good about ourselves, it shows in our behavior. We are confident, Fuller of energy and seem to attract more good things into our lives. On the other hand, when we don’t feel so good about ourselves, it’s hard to fake it. We may avoid people and opportunities, start to believe negative things about ourselves that aren’t true and end up feeling even worse. Why is self worth so important? Because it has a big impact on the quality of our lives. When we feel good about ourselves, we are more likely to take care of our health, be productive citizens and reach our goals. We also tend to be happier, have healthier relationships and be more resilient when bad things happen. So how do we make sure our self worth stays high? Here are a few ideas:

Find things you’re good at and do them often
Recognise your accomplishments, no matter how small
Spend time with people who make you feel good about yourself
Treat yourself with kindness and respect
Forgive yourself for your mistakes

“You must have as a basic principle, the determination to achieve excellence in your various fields of endeavour…

you’re gonna be deciding as the days and the years unfold. What you will do in life, what your life’s work will be. And once you discover what it will be set out to do it and to do it well. And I say to you, my young friends, that doors are opening to each of you, doors of opportunity are opening to each of you that were not open to your mothers and to your fathers and the great challenge facing. It’s to be ready to enter these doors as they open.”

There’s no denying that life can be tough. We all face challenges and obstacles, and sometimes it can feel like we’re just struggling to keep our heads above water. However, it’s important to remember that life is also a gift. It’s a precious opportunity to experience all the joy and beauty that the world has to offer. That’s why it’s so important to strive for excellence in everything we do. When we set our sights high and commit ourselves to excellence, we open up a world of possibilities. We give ourselves the chance to truly thrive and reach our full potential. Excellence is its own reward, but it also leads to a more fulfilling, happier life. So don’t be afraid to aim for the stars – excellence is within your reach.

“And finally, in your last blueprint must be a commitment to the eternal principles of beauty, love and justice.

Don’t allow anybody to pull you so low as to make you hate them. Don’t allow anybody to cause you to lose your self respect to the point. That you do not struggle for justice. However young you are, you have a responsibility to seek, to make your nation a better nation in which to live.

You have a responsibility to seek, to make life better for everybody. And so you must be involved in the struggle for. And justice now in this struggle for freedom, injustice, there are many constructive things that we all can do and that we all must do. And we must not give ourselves to those things, which will not solve our problems.”

Most of us want to live good lives. We want to be happy and have meaningful relationships. We want to do something that makes a difference. And part of living a good life is working for justice. When we see someone being treated unfairly, it can feel like a personal attack. We may not even know the person who is being mistreated, but we can empathise with their situation. And when we see someone who is different from us being treated unfairly, it can stir up feelings of anger and frustration. But instead of letting those negative emotions take over, we can use them as motivation to fight for justice.

Working for justice doesn’t mean that we have to go out and protest every day or become a lawyer or politician. There are many small ways that we can make a difference. We can stand up for someone who is being bullied. We can speak out against discrimination and bigotry. We can volunteer our time to help those who are less fortunate than us. We can educate ourselves and others about social injustice. And we can vote for candidates who support policies that will make our world a more just and equitable place for all people. We can make justice not only something we try to accomplish with our actions, but something we embody as people.

Do you have a moral obligation to help the world’s poor?

Despite my family not being Catholic at all, I went to a Catholic all-girls high school, because apparently when I was ten years old, I said that I wanted to go to a school without boys. I didn’t find the religious education, or the relatively conservative Christian values of the school to be much of a problem for most of my time there. Compared to the views of my Seventh Day Adventist (the Serbian half of my) family, my education felt rather progressive for the most part, with many members of my family objecting to the fact that we were taught about evolution in our biology classes, and we were told to not always take a literal interpretation of the bible, which again my family didn’t approve of. But there came a critical juncture in my Catholic education, which unbeknownst to me at the time, would change the trajectory of my life.

Being a Catholic school, it was compulsory to study religion in senior school, with two option available to us. ‘Religion And Ethics’ was similar to the religious education classes we’d taken in years eight to ten shaped by Catholicism, which didn’t count towards your overall score for university entry. Students who had no plans to attend university, or wanted a “bludge” subject chose RAE. ‘Study Of Religion’ was a more objective subject that explored how various religious traditions have influenced, and continue to influence, people’s lives, and our grade counted towards our overall score for university entry. I chose to do SOR, which ended up being a good thing, because only your top five subjects get used to calculate your university entry score, which meant my shockingly poor chemistry grades didn’t matter.

I’m not entirely sure what the unit of study was actually about, but in year 12 SOR we watched a documentary called “Peter Singer, a Dangerous Mind.” A 2003 documentary that even then, in 2013 seemed a little outdate, focused on the bioethics of Australian philosopher Peter Singer, who refuted traditional (read: Catholic) ethics on the questions of life and death. I’m assuming that the idea of showing us the documentary was to get us to oppose his ethics, given that they were in direct opposition to the core Christian value of the sanctity of life; the idea that human life, as an extension of God, is inherently sacred. This doesn’t appear to be too problematic at first, but when a human— which Catholics believe begins at conception— is considered to be inherently sacred, a woman’s right to an abortion is considered an immoral act.

One day in class we were presented with a quote from Peter Singer, taken way out of context, and asked to raise our hand if we agreed with his sentiment. The quote read: “An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless it is so important that the use of a brain damaged human would be justifiable.” I raised my hand, along with one or two of my friends— the remainder of the class did not. When asked by the teacher to explain to my peers why I agreed, I explained my thoughts to the effect of “I completely agree with what he’s saying… if we think that if we use limited intelligence or cognitive abilities as the only moral justification for testing on animals, than that logic should extend to all animals, including humans. If we can’t justify doing it to a human, we can’t justify doing it to an animal.” Immediately, a girl in my class who came from a Catholic family chimed in with a story about her intellectually disabled uncle, who brings so much joy to her family, and how the thought of using him for experimentation upset and angered her. Did she not realise that she was only helping my argument more? “Exactly. And because you can’t justify doing something so cruel to your uncle, how could you justify doing it to any sentient being with the same ability to suffer or experience joy?” She didn’t want to listen to what I was saying. The teacher had succeeded, at least for one student, on further perpetuating this idea that human lives are more sacred than any other sentient being.

At this point in my life, I was already vegan, so the philosophy of Peter Singer— the guy who literally coined the term ‘animal liberation’ in his book of the same title in 1975, and who also coined the term speciesism to describe the idea that human lives are not inherently more valuable than non-human animals— resonated with me and was much more palatable than it may have been if I was not as receptive to the ethical idea that we should cause suffering for sentient beings. The topic of Peter Singer, and my in-class debate with that girl created a bit of a buzz around the school, for at lest a few days. Then one day, a friend of mine (shout-out to Kuei) gave me a copy of one of Peter Singers books. She knew that I was interested in a career in global development and that I was a fan of Singer, and she had received a copy of The Life You Can Save, Singer’s book that demonstrates that we have a moral obligation to help the world’s poorest. She was right. Not only did I love the book, but I ended up going on to major in philosophy at university, and even doing my honours in philosophy, with my honours thesis inspired largely by Singers book One World Now: the ethics of globalisation. When I think back to the fact that if I’d never received a copy of this book, I may not have even found myself working in the social change space (this is something I’ve mentioned in the HCN handbook, The Changemaker In You), it actually blows my mind.

In March 2022, I got to attend An Evening With Peter Singer, an event organised by Think Inc. where I was able to sit literally metres away from him, hear him talk, and even tell him that he inspired me to study philosophy (it was a truly cringe-worthy fangirl moment on my behalf).

In 2009, Peter Singer wrote the first edition of The Life You Can Save to demonstrate why we should care about and help those living in global extreme poverty, and how easy it is to improve and even save lives by giving effectively. Peter then founded a nonprofit organisation of the same name, The Life You Can Save, to advance the ideas in the book. Together, the book and organisation have helped raise millions of dollars for effective charities, supporting work protecting people from diseases, restoring sight, avoiding unwanted pregnancies, ensuring that children get the nutrients they need, and providing opportunities to not only survive but thrive.

SPOILER ALERT: the central argument of the book is as follows:

Premise 1 – Suffering from something and died due to lack of food are bad.

Premise 2 – If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything as nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

Premise 3 – By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from the lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important

Conclusion – if you do not donate to aid agencies, then you are doing something morally wrong. Whether or not a utilitarian approach to tackling global poverty is the best approach… that’s a post for another day! But the argument is one that is rather compelling, and one that catalysed my own journey as a changemaker and philosopher.

In the decade since the first book’s publication, dramatic progress has been made in reducing global extreme poverty. However, millions still live on less than $1.90 a day, and there is yet much to be done.

To address the continuing need, and to build on the success of the first edition, Singer acquired the book rights and updated the content to be current and even more relevant. With mission-aligned celebrity narrators and by giving away the audiobook and e-book for free (https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org.au/), the 10th-anniversary edition of The Life You Can Save aims to inform, inspire and empower as many people as possible to act now.

Spirituality vs Religion vs Philosophy: key differences and how they shape social change

Spirituality, religion, and philosophy are all closely related but there are some important distinctions between them. Spirituality is primarily concerned with a personal relationship with the divine or the transcendent. It is often experienced as a deeply interior journey and can take many different forms. Religion, on the other hand, is more focused on the social aspects associated with a belief system and often includes rituals, traditions, and a community of believers. Philosophy, meanwhile, is primarily concerned with understanding the nature of reality and the human experience. It often relies on reason and logic, but can also be seen as a spiritual practice in its own right. Ultimately, each of these approaches offers a unique way of understanding and engaging with the world around us, and thus they each play their own distinct role in our lives as changemakers.

Spirituality: relationships and connection

For some people, spirituality is all about religion. They might say that being spiritual means believing in a higher power and living according to religious teachings. Others might define spirituality more broadly, saying that it’s about connecting with the natural world or connecting with something larger than oneself. There are many different ways to be spiritual, and there’s no one right answer. Ultimately, spirituality is whatever brings you a sense of peace, wonder, and connection. It might involve attending church or meditating in nature. It might mean spending time with friends and family or volunteering in your community. There are endless possibilities!

Spirituality has always been a driving force behind social change. For one thing, it can provide a moral framework for activists to follow. Spiritual teachings often emphasise compassion, kindness, and love, which can help guide people as they strive to make the world a better place. Additionally, spirituality can be a source of strength and hope in the face of difficult circumstances. When people feel connected to something larger than themselves, they may be more likely to persevere in the face of adversity. Finally, spirituality can help people build community and find common ground with others who are working for similar causes. When people feel part of a larger group, they may be more likely to take action and work together towards positive change.

Religion: a belief system

Religion is often described as a belief in a higher power or powers. It can also involve following certain ethical guidelines or participating in religious ceremonies or practices. Some people believe that religion is necessary for creating a moral code, while others see it as a way to connect with the divine or transcendent. There is no one right answer to the question of what religion is, but there are a few different ways to think about it. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide what role religion plays in their life and belief system, if any. For some people, their spirituality is largely shaped by their religion. For those without a set religious belief or community, spirituality will mean something more personal.

Religion has played a significant role in social change throughout history. In many cases, religious leaders have been at the forefront of movements for social justice, equality, and reform. For example, Mahatma Gandhi used his Buddhist beliefs to rally support for India’s independence from British rule. In the United States, Martin Luther King Jr. drew upon his Christian faith to lead the civil rights movement. Today, religious groups continue to play an important role in promoting social change. Because religions ascribe a set of moral values or rules, these are often directed at helping the wider community, which is why we see so many religious organisations are often at the forefront of efforts to combat poverty and hunger. In this way, religion can be a powerful force for good in the world.

Philosophy: a way of thinking

Philosophy is the study of the nature of reality, the kind of reality that exists beyond the physical world. It investigates whether there is a God, what happens after death, the meaning of life, and whether we can know anything for sure. Philosophy also tries to answer questions like: What is good and evil? What is beauty? How should we live our lives? Philosophers have been asking these types of questions for centuries, and there are many different schools of thought within philosophy. Some philosophers focus on trying to figure out the nature of reality, while others focus on ethics or how we should live our lives. There are also philosophers who focus on specific issues like politics or art.

Philosophy can play an important role in social change by helping us to question our assumptions and beliefs. For example, we may take it for granted that everyone should be treated equally, but when we stop to think about it, we may realise that this is not always the case. By questioning our beliefs, we can start to see the ways in which they may be harmful or outdated, and this can help to pave the way for social change. Additionally, philosophy can help us to critically analyse arguments and to see both sides of a issue. This is essential for effective social change, as it allows us to build strong arguments in favour of our position and to anticipate and refute counterarguments. Ultimately, philosophy provides us with the tools we need to think critically about the world around us and to work towards making positive social change, and can play an active role in promoting peace and understanding between different cultures.