# How it is possible to enjoy music knowing how much there are suffering people?



## jonatan (May 6, 2016)

It was so hard for me to enjoy and experience music in this evening's concert, when my thoughts again and again were back about so much people who experience hunger, suffering, cruel jobs, poverty, desperation, insecurity, humiliation, slavery and so on, so on. So much social justice is in these days in this world, billions and billions suffer from it. Cruel jobs in harvesting, slaugtherhouses, building industries, waste handling etc. - all those jobs are in the developed countries as well. And today so much can be done by robotics, automation and artificial intelligence but social order prevents enough development of technologies, instead it presses more and more people into poverty and primitive jobs, social order increases inequality and prolongs the stagnation of the middle class.

So much suffering there is around me, but I am this happy man sitting in concert and enjoying music which was beautiful tonight. Do I deserve it?

From the one side - maybe I deserve, my job is in automation industry and also I am participating in the progressive social democratic political movement which tries to bring more humanity into this world. From the other side - people experience real sufferings here and now, they need solutions now.

Of course, I know - those who compose music, those who play music and those who listen to it - those can not live without music. I know it, because I can not live without my research work as well. I should do it as much as musicians do their work because their talents require them to do it, sometimes even experiencing hardships and making sacrifices. But anyway - so - *we should create and experience music for spiritual survival, there is no other way, but are we eligible for something more, for enjoyment and for happiness in this world of sufferings?*

The program of this evening was:
Symphonic dances by Stravinsky
Concerto fantastique by Martinsson
Symphony No. 8 by Beethoven


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

The alternative to enjoying music (or other things) is to not enjoy them, and that would make the world a much worse place than it is already.

If you are to help others (if that is your wish) you need to be able to do so.

You need nourishment not just for the body, but also the mind to enable you to help others.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

How it is possible to enjoy music knowing how much there are suffering people?Translation: How can we enjoy escapist classical music when Trump is in power?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Yes, there’s great suffering and unconsciousness in the world. Monumental suffering. But if you go down too by being broken in spirit by its weight, then the universe is down two and even worse off than before. If you want to help the general atmosphere, find ways to renew your courage and spirit, including through the regenerative power of the arts, and be a light unto the world rather than someone who allows himself to be drained of his energy. Some people can uplift the general atmosphere of the world just by their presence and take advantage of the opportunities to better themselves and help others make a constructive difference in their lives.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> [h=2]How can we enjoy escapist classical music when Trump is in power?


What is in power ? money . The string quartet plays on a street corner and accepts donations ... without suffering .


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Remember that even in war time, audiences used to flock to classical concerts. Some of the stories about a young Bernstein conducting in extremely dangerous places in Israel are incredible to read. Barbirolli took orchestra on tour in war-torn Europe and the grateful troops got something from it. In WWII, nothing would stop audiences from going to concert in Germany, Russia or England. Wouldn't happen today - the public taste for higher quality music is minimal. 

But another issue that you bring up hits home: with so much suffering, so many societal needs, how can we possible spend money on something as seemingly pointless as opera, ballet and symphonies? There has to be a balance, yet in many US cities we spend fortunes building sports arenas for multi-millionaire athletes, offer huge tax cuts to investors and relatively little on music. This debate has been going on a long, long time. When I was in school the big debate was should be spending so much on the space race when we have so many needs at home?

Now...what in the world does Donald Trump have to do with this? What did he do to you? Is he some horrible, evil person who had denied you something? Are you jealous? Here's a very hard working man with a gift of charisma that allowed him to make billions, put up high-quality properties around the world, be a highly successful TV celebrity, "write" a couple of dozen books...and more. What have you accomplished? The taxes he pays helps a hell of a lot of people. The thousands of people he employs have good lives, nice homes, and pay more taxes thanks to people like him. Under his leadership, the US economy is booming thanks to throwing off the shackles the liberals put on. Ok, he's personally revolting, a misogynist, vulgar, bullying...he is still a highly accomplished man. He may not like classical music, but then neither did Obama, Bush I or II, Clinton, Reagan, Ford, Carter. The last president who really enjoyed it was Richard Nixon. I get it that some people can't stand him; I detested Obama. But I never thought anything like "how can enjoy escapist classical music when Obama is in power".


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

One's sense of empathy (feeling and concern for people and their conditions) need not be in conflict with one's sense of enjoyment. In fact, I would argue that arts can only truly be enjoyed by those with empathy for their fellow humans. A soul-less (in the human sense, not the spiritual one) person can hardly enjoy music if he cannot emotionally "connect" with his fellows.

There exists, then, a dichotomy or conflict here -- encompassing pain/suffering with ease/happiness, a true human condition that can only be experienced by the empathetic person. Music, in fact, celebrates the very conflict, as different movements express different emotional states. The two-theme sonata form, in fact, often explores a vibrant, joyous theme contrasted to a doleful, melancholy theme; and in the best constructed sonata forms, these two themes are related as a yin-yang entity, just as a human being (a truly fulfilled human being, that is, one who can empathize) is a juxtaposition of conflicts. After all, the only way we can truly know joy is to also know sadness, suffering, misery.

The sociopath has little to no empathy, and likely makes for a poor artist. At least, such a one will likely not enjoy art which so relies upon emotional involvement and commitment. I suspect that the same persons who are overwhelmed by the finale of Beethoven's Ninth or the Mahler _Resurrection Symphony_ or the Tchaikovsky Sixth or Bernstein's _West Side Story_ are those who most experience sadness at tragedy, worry during troubling times, and devastation at so many of the news stories that descend upon us every day. Still, perhaps music can help soften the wounds, providing some sense of positivity, uplifting in the very face of darkness and despair.

Artists by their very nature tend to be positive people. Art tends to promote promise, hopefulness. It was conceived in an atmosphere of community and celebration. We tend to gather together to experience our arts, we join in a healing ritual when we do so. Art raises our spirits.

Even the darkest composers, say someone like Shostakovich, whose music seems full of despair and sadness, is still producing an art form to present to a collective of souls in order to inform them, the message seeming to be that there is an alternative, a better way, and we must keep in mind what is happening around us and work to change it for the better. If the composer were all about despair, he would not write at all; he would simply commit suicide.

So, feel good that you are capable of feeling bad about much of what passes in our world. If you didn't have this capacity, you would be much a poorer human being.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

jonatan said:


> How it is possible to enjoy music knowing how much there are suffering people?


It's not your fault that the world has so many problems. I doubt that any of us here could cause any global change, but as individuals, we can do the best that we can to improve our community locally. If you at least try to make our reality better, even if it's only a bit better, but, still, better, then you should listen to your music and have your pleasures without any sense of guilt.

Well, it's my opinion.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

If I allow myself to be distracted or discouraged from enjoying music (or birdsong or flowers) by the suffering, inequality and misery in the world, it would make not one iota of difference to that ghastliness. It has taken me 64 years to realise that. Personal contentment, however fleeting, is not necessarily indulgence; it can be essential contextualisation, to remind us that life can, and should be, better than it often is.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

jonatan said:


> . . . but are we eligible for something more, for enjoyment and for happiness in this world of sufferings?[/B]


A more immediate question is, and the one that concerns me is, what suffering have I caused?

If someone is hurting because of you, then absolutely, drop your concert program and fix the problem.

And what opportunities you have to make the world better, take them. But don't carry the world on your shoulders. They aren't big enough.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

OP are you saying that there should be no pleasure in the world simply because there is monumental suffering?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It's a very human thing to believe everything's just terrible and everyone is suffering. However, if you look at actual rates of crime, deaths from war, and even poverty, the picture you get may be something different from what the news media use to sell copy. Worldwide poverty, for instance, from World Bank data:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

jonatan said:


> So much suffering there is around me, but I am this happy man sitting in concert and enjoying music which was beautiful tonight. Do I deserve it?


That's for you to decide.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Well, one way to look at it is: every dollar spent building an opera house or paying an oboe player is one not spent on a B-2 bomber or an exocet missille or a drone . . .


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

First off - I think the response the OP needs or deserves is one of appreciation rather than answers. Appreciation that, although we have our love of music and the comfort to "indulge" it, there are far too many in the world who have nearly nothing, not even the prospect that things might get better. 

Then I think the next response - and the beginning of an answer - is to seek to understand better what has happened and is happening that causes this suffering. Not only the economics (although that is a big part) or the sociology but also to explore what we have in common with those who are suffering and what we can learn from them. These aren't simple matters. Few people bother to try to understand. So our democracies are filled with people who swallow propaganda, get manipulated (often against their own interests) by scapegoating and hatred and people who reject evidence while accepting the obviously fake. And democracy is reduced to supporting a team rather than weighing the evidence and deciding where we want to do. And, for those of us in a two party system, it can often seem like there is little choice but between personalities, anyway. But even when you do get the start of an understanding, doesn't it seem that we are powerless to stop the trends and forces that are doing this to our world?

We can't change all that, perhaps, but we can make sure that we are as opposite to it as it is possible to be. When we begin to understand what is going wrong we might see the beginnings of solutions and we might be more difficult to con and lie to. We might also see others who feel and see the same and see ways to join with them. And if we enjoy music, too, then that is a wonderful thing.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

jonatan said:


> It was so hard for me to enjoy and experience music in this evening's concert, when my thoughts again and again were back about so much people who experience hunger, suffering, cruel jobs, poverty, desperation, insecurity, humiliation, slavery and so on, so on. So much social justice is in these days in this world, billions and billions suffer from it. Cruel jobs in harvesting, slaugtherhouses, building industries, waste handling etc. - all those jobs are in the developed countries as well. And today so much can be done by robotics, automation and artificial intelligence but social order prevents enough development of technologies, instead it presses more and more people into poverty and primitive jobs, social order increases inequality and prolongs the stagnation of the middle class.
> 
> From the one side - maybe I deserve, my job is in automation industry and also I am participating in the progressive social democratic political movement which tries to bring more humanity into this world. From the other side - people experience real sufferings here and now, they need solutions now.
> 
> ...


WTF, Honest.

Cruel jobs in harvesting, slaugtherhouses, building industries, waste handling etc.????

You can't be serious.



> So much suffering there is around me, but I am this happy man sitting in concert and enjoying music which was beautiful tonight. Do I deserve it?


I sure as hell deserve it. Send me your tickets.

What is it you research for work? That sounds like hell to me.

Let me tell you how it works. You work long and hard. You rest when you need it and you reward yourself with food drink and art while always staying willing to help the poor.

You do not become obsessed, needlessly contemplative or self flogging when your toil rewards you.
In other words, be a man.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

It's fairly easy to sort out progressive societies from utterly corrupt and failed ones. It is also fairly easy to sort out which sets of underlying philosophical/political/economic structures underlie those progressive societies that enjoy high rates of health and contentment and low rates of wealth and/or gender inequality. If one then works in whatever ways--voting, volunteering, educating others--to enhance conditions, then one can easily turn to the restorative properties of the arts to both nourish and heal, without falling into a sterile mire of despair and paralysis. We each can do what we can or are best suited to do.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

In intending to do nothing all is accomplished .


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I know where the OP is coming from. I felt the same at one point years ago. What changed my perspective is the idea that we don't normalize the enjoyment / suffering in Life in society as a whole. There are some whose lives are smooth sailing, others constantly tumultuous, and everything in between. We all live our own individual lives which is the only reality we each know. But we help where we can, knowing we don't live in a vaccum. Even when I was depressed, I found stuff that made life worth living when faced with the alternative. I commend the OP for his thoughtfulness of others.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

What compels you to feel that it matters about those who are suffering?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> It's a very human thing to believe everything's just terrible and everyone is suffering. However, if you look at actual rates of crime, deaths from war, and even poverty, the picture you get may be something different from what the news media use to sell copy. Worldwide poverty, for instance, from World Bank data:


Ken, you've been reading Pinker's books which is fine. But these charts are really no consolation for the enormous suffering and injustice in the world. As far as the OP's conflicting feelings are concerned, there's no point in getting all worked up about things you have no power to control. Feeling guilty about enjoying a concert is silly. You can't help humanity in the abstract. You can enjoy your music, and go visit a lonely person in a nursing home. Guilt over this is a waste of energy.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Ken, you've been reading Pinker's books which is fine. But these charts are really no consolation for the enormous suffering and injustice in the world.


I disagree. Certainly if it's natural to feel sadness at the suffering in the world, it's just as natural to feel joy in its reduction. Especially when that reduction is so substantial.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The intensity and pervasiveness of suffering can't be determined in a head count of dollars per day per individual. For instance, the OP is suffering over the fact that millions are suffering while he/she enjoys fine music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

eljr said:


> In other words, be a man.


To many of us being a man is about acknowledging what is going on around us to our fellows. To some of us being a man also means looking squarely at the roles we play (wittingly and unwittingly) is injustices around us. Celebrating the most crude and animalistic version of what we can be is not only unimaginative but also blind to history and economics.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

You won't help anyone by refusing to enjoy music.

You might ask yourself why you're troubled by the suffering of people you don't know. Obviously you have some kind of strong moral sense. Is that moral sense directed only to the avoidance of suffering, or does it seek something positive as well? Love, peace, joy? Isn't music a part of that?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A hopefully logical argument: If it’s not “right” to enjoy music when many are suffering, then throughout all history good people would never have enjoyed music. Music, both its creation and its listening, would have been left to the callous and amoral. Where would music be then?

And in fact, good music is enjoyed by people in poverty, people who are oppressed, people who are ill, etc. If good people avoided music out of sympathy for their plights, they would be injuring the suffering rather than helping them by depriving them of the solace of music. And that solace may be more important to the suffering than to the more fortunate.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

jonatan said:


> So much suffering there is around me, but I am this happy man sitting in concert and enjoying music which was beautiful tonight. Do I deserve it?


I don't know about "deserve" but probably you should not have been spending your time and money listening to the music, certainly buying the ticket when there are people who need the money for more urgent things seems morally unjustifiable to me. And the time spent listening could be spent doing things to help others. Being moral is demanding, I don't do the right thing enough myself. I think we have to take it in small steps. Maybe next time a concert offers itself up, don't go and give the money to someone in need.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Don't buy concert tickets.

Then musicians end up with no money.

If music were so irrelevant to living life, why the hell did so many fine works get composed and performed, for example, in Terezin???


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> To many of us being a man is about acknowledging what is going on around us to our fellows. To some of us being a man also means looking squarely at the roles we play (wittingly and unwittingly) is injustices around us. Celebrating the most crude and animalistic version of what we can be is not only unimaginative but also blind to history and economics.


who advocates celebrating the most crude and animalistic?

The whole OP is a bit much for my ways. You work hard, you love hard. You rest when you need, you eat and drink to survive and to enjoy. Any balanced man knows of their social responsibilities and they are part of his day. Everyday. If you do all this and still have time to enjoy music yet you can't because your mind betrays you to do more... it's an illness.

A man knows his obligations, complies and then if he can, he enjoys. It is healthy to. In fact, it is an obligation we have for self and society.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Robert Pickett said:


> Don't buy concert tickets.
> 
> Then musicians end up with no money.
> 
> If music were so irrelevant to living life, why the hell did so many fine works get composed and performed, for example, in Terezin???


Look, suppose a concert ticket costs £10, which you have to spare.

You now have a choice, you either buy the ticket or give the £10 to save the sight of that blind woman over there, across the street, maybe someone you know even.

It's obvious to me that the right thing to do is not go to the concert and save the woman's sight.

Now next time you buy a ticket, you have the same dilemma.

The only difference is that the woman isn't in front of you, visible, on the other side of the street. She's hidden, you'll never know who she is. She's maybe a different race or nationality or faith.

But I would argue that these differences, though psychologically important, are morally irrelevant.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Fair enough. I'd argue that we are all capable of empathy, were that not the case there would be something wrong with us.

That said, displaying empathy for the entire world, for every single individual who makes up Mankind, in this manner, either has too much of the pungent whiff of burning martyr, or appears as a very public display of self-immolation.

Sorry, but it embarks my paridae.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Look, suppose a concert ticket costs £10, which you have to spare.
> 
> You now have a choice, you either buy the ticket or give the £10 to save the sight of that blind woman over there, across the street, maybe someone you know even.
> 
> ...


An interesting point of view, one that's difficult to argue against. But by the same logic, we who live in wealthy countries should adopt meager and unsatisfying diets and use all the money saved to improve diets in poorer countries. And ditto for a thousand other things: medical care, fire protection, safe drinking water, our homes…


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I have more than I need. Other people need some of what I have more than I do, often to achieve a very basic quality of life (like a life with sight in the case of someone with cataracts . . .) Morally, I have no justification for keeping it and spending it on music.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm only here once. I give to and support others all I can but we all need to smile. Music (and City outplaying and beating Manyoo in the Derby) makes me smile. I don't make any excuses for enjoying something I love.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

More: Deaths from war, worldwide:










More: Violent crime rate, United States:










More: Traffic fatalities, Unites States:










I could go on and on. Of course your TV talking heads will tell you something different.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Look, suppose a concert ticket costs £10, which you have to spare.
> 
> You now have a choice, you either buy the ticket or give the £10 to save the sight of that blind woman over there, across the street, maybe someone you know even.
> 
> ...


It is probably morally indefensible to do anything which does not alleviate suffering in the world. So you should live in the cheapest possible accommodation - shared preferably in the lowest area - and live on the cheapest and smallest amount of food. You can buy porridge in bulk for £10 25KG - milk can be had for £1 for 4 pints. Sack of potatoes 25kg for £6. You should be spending no more than £50 a month on your food. Use charity shops for clothes and only buy when absolutely necessary. Dont spend money on music - listen on the internet for free. But dont even do that as you can spend that time working for voluntary organisations when you are not doing your job. As for your excess income - do the research - find those charities that spend money the most economically. You dont want to be funding excessive salaries for those at the top of major charities like oxfam etc. You might want to do it direct - buy supplies and drive them to Calais - there are many needy people there. You should certainly lobby for all immigrants in distress to be allowed into the UK. The landmass is only 1% populated and we have room here for all.

So in short if you want to be 100% moral you cant do anything which is not an act to help others who are in distress and most certainly should not be wasting time listening to music when you could be helping people. If you must - use your mini headphones while you are doing good deeds and only listen to requiems so that you can be at one with all the suffering while you do your part to make the world a better place.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2018)

jonatan said:


> So much suffering there is around me, but I am this happy man sitting in concert and enjoying music which was beautiful tonight. Do I deserve it?


No-one in this life "deserves" anything in particular. For those who believe we're here by accident, we're just here and, arguably, equally "entitled" to the basics for survival. Anything beyond that is some kind of contractual agreement between humans for money, jobs, leisure, self-actualisation etc.

If you do not "deserve" to enjoy music because of the misery elsewhere in the world, then none of us does (unless you think you personally have done something, or failed to do something, which means you "deserve" it even less).

So, if we were all to act on the same impulse - to put misery first, and go and work with the poor - how would society continue to generate the wealth needed for food, medecine, shelter...?

We all have one life and, if we're lucky, a choice about how to lead it. Many of us make balanced choices to enjoy what we can and make the world a better place locally.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

How is it possible? easy, you need to become callous


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> No-one in this life "deserves" anything in particular. For those who believe we're here by accident, we're just here and, arguably, equally "entitled" to the basics for survival. Anything beyond that is some kind of contractual agreement between humans for money, jobs, leisure, self-actualisation etc.
> 
> If you do not "deserve" to enjoy music because of the misery elsewhere in the world, then none of us does (unless you think you personally have done something, or failed to do something, which means you "deserve" it even less).
> 
> ...


No we would order things in such a way that wealth creation comes first and distribution is done on fully moral grounds to the greater good.

There is enough wealth in the world to minimise poverty etc so we can all listen to music.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

From my perspective, the best thing people of means can do is to adopt children in need. It's a 24/7 commitment that lasts the rest of your life.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> From my perspective, the best thing people of means can do is to adopt children in need. It's a 24/7 commitment that lasts the rest of your life.


Yes, I can see that.

What I would like is a tax ringfenced for aid. I think that it could be presented in a way which would make it popular.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

stomanek said:


> It is probably morally indefensible to do anything which does not alleviate suffering in the world. So you should live in the cheapest possible accommodation - shared preferably in the lowest area - and live on the cheapest and smallest amount of food. You can buy porridge in bulk for £10 25KG - milk can be had for £1 for 4 pints. Sack of potatoes 25kg for £6. You should be spending no more than £50 a month on your food. Use charity shops for clothes and only buy when absolutely necessary. Dont spend money on music - listen on the internet for free. But dont even do that as you can spend that time working for voluntary organisations when you are not doing your job. As for your excess income - do the research - find those charities that spend money the most economically. You dont want to be funding excessive salaries for those at the top of major charities like oxfam etc. You might want to do it direct - buy supplies and drive them to Calais - there are many needy people there. You should certainly lobby for all immigrants in distress to be allowed into the UK. The landmass is only 1% populated and we have room here for all.
> 
> So in short if you want to be 100% moral you cant do anything which is not an act to help others who are in distress and most certainly should not be wasting time listening to music when you could be helping people. If you must - use your mini headphones while you are doing good deeds and only listen to requiems so that you can be at one with all the suffering while you do your part to make the world a better place.


It's clearly hard to be moral. I'm not moral, I have and keep more than I need while knowing that other human beings are very needy and that I could help. I think we need to take small steps.

One fundamental problem is that we care only about things close to us, physically close to us. We need to develop a system of education which develops more universal sympathy.

Another is the rights ideology, which used to be ubiquitous in the US, I don't know if it still is, according to which we have a moral right to keep what we have earned or inherited.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Yes, I can see that.
> 
> What I would like is a tax ringfenced for aid. I think that it could be presented in a way which would make it popular.


I never heard of that. Could you elaborate?


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

KenOC said:


> It's a very human thing to believe everything's just terrible and everyone is suffering. However, if you look at actual rates of crime, deaths from war, and even poverty, the picture you get may be something different from what the news media use to sell copy. Worldwide poverty, for instance, from World Bank data:


Thank you for posting that Ken. Good news indeed, but is dollar inflation weighed in? (Even though the US dollar inflation is very low it adds up when you are talking of an era of more than 20 years).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> No-one in this life "deserves" anything in particular...


I recently read a book that claimed humans and other animals have a mix of altruism and selfishness. The mix is determined by the likelihood of individuals transmitting their DNA onward through the generations. The genes of individuals with too much altruism or too much selfishness will sooner or later disappear from the gene pool.

So, a note of caution for the soft-hearted here: By all means go to the concert, but flip a dime to the beggar at the entrance to the hall. Be sure to advise him: "Don't spend it all in one place."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ras said:


> Thank you for posting that Ken. Good news indeed, but is dollar inflation weighed in? (Even though the US dollar inflation is very low it adds up when you are talking of an era of more than 20 years).


I think anyone doing this kind of analysis would be sure to use constant dollars (with effects of price inflation removed). But the notes on the graph don't say.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I never heard of that. Could you elaborate?


The idea is that we have a tax on rich people and the revenues would be given to effective aid agencies, and we present it as a referendum, something people would vote for. Many people, I feel, wouldn't give the taxed sum alone, because they wouldn't feel it would do good, it's too small given the scale of the problem. But if they knew that 1,000,000 other people would also be contributing, then voting yes to the tax would do 1,000,000 times more good. I think many people would vote yes to the referendum.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I never heard of that. Could you elaborate?


The idea is that we have a tax on rich people and the revenues would be given to effective aid agencies, and we present it as a referendum, something people would vote for. Many people, I feel, wouldn't give the taxed sum alone, because they wouldn't feel it would do any good, the general problem's so big, and there's no one person you can identify as _the _person whose sight you've restored, whose life you have saved etc. But if they knew that 1,000,000 other people would also be contributing, then voting yes to the tax would do 1,000,000 times more good. I think many people would vote yes to the referendum.

You see, I think that if many rich people know that by giving they are really helping, then they are swayed by the moral argument and they give.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> The idea is that we have a tax on rich people and the revenues would be given to effective aid agencies, and we present it as a referendum, something people would vote for. Many people, I feel, wouldn't give the taxed sum alone, because they wouldn't feel it would do good, it's too small given the scale of the problem. But if they knew that 1,000,000 other people would also be contributing, then voting yes to the tax would do 1,000,000 times more good. I think many people would vote yes to the referendum.


But aren't some of t hose wealthy people already contributing by providing hundreds of not thousands of jobs so that many people don't have to be poor. Where is the moral right to take money from someone because they are wealthy? And you said a referendum. Hmmm, Three wolves and a sheep vote for what to eat for dinner? Of course the people who stand to gain will vote for the rich to give them money.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2018)

stomanek said:


> No we would order things in such a way that wealth creation comes first and distribution is done on fully moral grounds to the greater good.
> 
> There is enough wealth in the world to minimise poverty etc so we can all listen to music.


No? I'm not sure what you're saying "No" to. I simply pointed out that if we all took the view that we must give up our current lives (which includes listening to classical music) and go work with the poor, there would be no-one left to do the rest of what needs to be done. I wasn't advocating it.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> The idea is that we have a tax on rich people and the revenues would be given to effective aid agencies, and we present it as a referendum, something people would vote for. Many people, I feel, wouldn't give the taxed sum alone, because they wouldn't feel it would do any good, the general problem's so big, and there's no one person you can identify as _the _person whose sight you've restored, whose life you have saved etc. But if they knew that 1,000,000 other people would also be contributing, then voting yes to the tax would do 1,000,000 times more good. I think many people would vote yes to the referendum.
> 
> You see, I think that if many rich people know that by giving they are really helping, then they are swayed by the moral argument and they give.


If there was such a tax it would surely first go towards solving problems of inequality we have in our own countries. There is enough suffering here in the UK - no need to look overseas.

Also - the UK has a whopping national debt of near on 2 trillion GBP. We as a nation already provide funds via our own international aid program. Plus the huge sums raised by charities. This national debt is going to sink us all sooner or later and then nobody will get a crust.

So my view is we are already doing what is reasonable and there is no good argument that we should not do our best to enjoy our lives even if there is suffering around the world.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> No? I'm not sure what you're saying "No" to. I simply pointed out that if we all took the view that we must give up our current lives (which includes listening to classical music) and go work with the poor, there would be no-one left to do the rest of what needs to be done. I wasn't advocating it.


who suggested giving up our lives to work with the poor? that is an extreme. what we can do is go on with our lives but do more via charitable donations etc to alleviate suffering.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

stomanek said:


> If there was such a tax it would surely first go towards solving problems of inequality we have in our own countries. There is enough suffering here in the UK - no need to look overseas.
> 
> Also - the UK has a whopping national debt of near on 2 trillion GBP. We as a nation already provide funds via our own international aid program. Plus the huge sums raised by charities. This national debt is going to sink us all sooner or later and then nobody will get a crust.
> 
> So my view is we are already doing what is reasonable and there is no good argument that we should not do our best to enjoy our lives even if there is suffering around the world.


The need in sub Saharan Africa is greater than in the UK I think.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> It's a very human thing to believe everything's just terrible and everyone is suffering. However, if you look at actual rates of crime, deaths from war, and even poverty, the picture you get may be something different from what the news media use to sell copy. Worldwide poverty, for instance, from World Bank data:


I'm so glad you've shared this graph with us. Both trend lines clearly showed us in advance by simple extrapolation the total disappearance of global poverty in 2018, a truly remarkable event in the history of humankind.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Also no blip at all in connection with the 2008 financial crisis, in fact the fall increases. The World Bank must have failed to force some large third-world countries to cut all of their social spending that year.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2018)

stomanek said:


> who suggested giving up our lives to work with the poor? that is an extreme.


a) No one suggested it. It seemed to me to be implied by the OP - that one can't (shouldn't) enjoy classical music while there is so much suffering, and therefore that one must attend to the suffering instead.
b) Working for Oxfam or MSF is an extreme? I don't think so.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

So we want to help the suffering. What should we offer? What they want or what we think they should have?

World Toilet Day is next week. In that connection, the lack of proper toilets and the widespread practice of open defecation is a major public health threat in many areas. And yet I read that mankind owns more phones than toilets. So what is the suffering masses telling us they want? Proper sanitation or decent 4G coverage?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> So we want to help the suffering. What should we offer? What they want or what we think they should have?
> 
> World Toilet Day is next week. In that connection, the lack of proper toilets and the widespread practice of open defecation is a major public health threat in many areas. And yet I read that mankind owns more phones than toilets. So what is the suffering masses telling us they want? Proper sanitation or decent 4G coverage?


 Very true. If you go to some parts of the developing world you will find plenty of mobile phones but rather fewer toilets and those they have a pet latrines which is shared by the village . We actually belong to a scheme which links our own toilet to one in Africa which we sponsor.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Obviously the problem of suffering is worldwide and he's offered inflicted by mankind on himself and on others. To me not listening to classical music or doing other things I enjoy will not make the slightest difference to the world problem of suffering. What will make a difference is if I sponsor a child's education in the developing world . Or help with the food bank in my own country . There is a saying that we can't change the world but we can change somebody's world. We can't solve the problems but we can make a difference to somebody


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Mahler struggled with this Dostoyevskian theme throughout his life, and I think that his first four symphonies - and his second in particular - are different solutions to this cardinal problem of (moral) life.

How can one be happy _as long as a single creature suffers on earth_? Mahler says: "O believe, _You_ were not born in vain, have not lived in vain, suffered in vain!" Goethe says: "The eternal feminine, leads us upwards!"

The very nature of life is such that suffering enriches one's spiritual faculties and teaches one compassion for one's fellow man, so (that) the last shall be first, and the first last.

"They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves _with him_." (Psalm 126:5-6)

It is thus _certainly_ easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Perhaps we are here (on Earth) to enhance ourselves spiritually, and if our lives tends to this spiritual enrichment, then art is a means to get there. _The Duty of Genius_ is thus "to endure the world's suffering and to give it artistic expression."

"I am convinced that our sufferings will be healed and smoothed away, that the whole offensive comedy of human conflict will disappear like a pathetic mirage, like the infamous fabrication of the Euclidean human mind, as weak and undersized as an atom, and that ultimately, during the universal finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, there will occur and become manifest something so precious that it will be sufficient for all hearts, for the soothing of all indignation, the redemption of all men's evil-doings, all the blood that has been shed by them, will be sufficient not only to make it possible to forgive but even to justify all the things that have happened to men - and even if all that, all of it, makes itself manifest and becomes reality, I will not accept it and do not want to accept it." (Dostoyevsky)


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

First, do no harm. If my listening to music is not inflicting suffering on anyone, then it's not a moral dilemma to me.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Fritz Kobus said:


> But aren't some of t hose wealthy people already contributing by providing hundreds of not thousands of jobs so that many people don't have to be poor. Where is the moral right to take money from someone because they are wealthy? And you said a referendum. Hmmm, Three wolves and a sheep vote for what to eat for dinner? Of course the people who stand to gain will vote for the rich to give them money.


When I was young (in the 1980s) I worked in famine relief and we always knew that the poorest and most vulnerable people would not be found in the poorest and most deprived areas. They could be found in or near the cities or the areas that were still thriving. That is where they could get work. Of course, they were not paid enough to build a life or pay for health care or education for their kids (who were working, too).

An example from extreme times, I guess, but trickle-down theories of wealth creation have long been shown to be fallacious justifications for an obscene wealth gap.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Gallus said:


> First, do no harm. If my listening to music is not inflicting suffering on anyone, then it's not a moral dilemma to me.


Yes. That is first. And then what?

I personally do not think we have to feel guilt at enjoying music although I do think it would be great if music were subsidised so you wouldn't have to be wealthy to enjoy it. I have visited quite a few ex-Soviet states that seem to continue the tradition of operas, ballets and concerts being extremely cheap (presumably subsidised) and I really liked the evident mix of wealth and background in the audience.

And I think I would feel some guilt if I were earning and consuming huge sums of money without giving back - through taxes and via charities - a fair share of my good fortune. I read sometimes people saying "I work hard for that" as if teachers and nursed don't work hard (before going off to the food bank to be sure they can feed their families).

I also think it is high time to look again at government as a provider of services. There is really very little evidence that government is inefficient in doing this even though nearly everyone these days believes it is. In fact the evidence goes strongly in the direction of demonstrating government efficiency. As for charities - some are good, others less so and it is really very difficult for us to know which ones are good (or even what the best and most effective approach is). Charity and patronage can often be demeaning.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

KenOC said:


> So we want to help the suffering. What should we offer? What they want or what we think they should have?
> 
> World Toilet Day is next week. In that connection, the lack of proper toilets and the widespread practice of open defecation is a major public health threat in many areas. And yet I read that mankind owns more phones than toilets. So what is the suffering masses telling us they want? Proper sanitation or decent 4G coverage?


Both, but no doubt the 'market' for mobile phones is much more profitable. After all it's great when you can get people to make something for cents and sell it back to the same makers for dollars.

Toilets means infrastructure, too frightening.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Re toilets, they don't necessarily mean infrastructure, this NGO may, or may not, be worthwhile

http://www.peepoople.com/peepoo/start-thinking-peepoo/


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

One way to assuage guilt experienced when observing the plight of suffering humanity is to become a warrior for rationality. Here, methods and goals are intertwined: A detoxification of male-dominated religion leads to full female equality leads to women in total control of their fertility leads to a gradual lowering of global populations leads to a long-term reversal of global warming and other environmental degradation that threaten to suffocate any further improvement in the lives of billions. We currently have examples, in the social democracies of northwestern Europe and a few other places, that give us a glimpse of what is possible in a better-run world.

Humanity is a deeply-flawed species. We were well-attuned to the biosphere and to one another as hunter-gatherers millennia ago. But the invention of agriculture, religion, and sophisticated technologies so easily capable of misuse and overuse, requires us to harness and control our capacity for raw emotion and our tendency toward irrationality and turn instead to rational behavior wherein problems are clearly identified and then thoughtful attempts to correct them are implemented.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mbhaub said:


> ...Now...what in the world does Donald Trump have to do with this? What did he do to you? Is he some horrible, evil person who had denied you something? Are you jealous? Here's a very hard working man with a gift of charisma that allowed him to make billions, put up high-quality properties around the world, be a highly successful TV celebrity, "write" a couple of dozen books...and more. What have you accomplished? The taxes he pays helps a hell of a lot of people. The thousands of people he employs have good lives, nice homes, and pay more taxes thanks to people like him. Under his leadership, the US economy is booming thanks to throwing off the shackles the liberals put on. Ok, he's personally revolting, a misogynist, vulgar, bullying...he is still a highly accomplished man. He may not like classical music, but then neither did Obama, Bush I or II, Clinton, Reagan, Ford, Carter. The last president who really enjoyed it was Richard Nixon. I get it that some people can't stand him; I detested Obama. But I never thought anything like "how can enjoy escapist classical music when Obama is in power".


Actually, I voted for Trump (don't tell my wife, please!). Still, I am torn and ambivalent. In the final picture, I'd say that "tough love sucks." Still, the passivity of doing nothing, of feeling helpless while Obama bails out Wall Street, is incredibly frustrating to me, and probably guided my decision. I have no doubt that many other voters feel the same.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

SONNET CLV said:


> The sociopath has little to no empathy, and likely makes for a poor artist. At least, such a one will likely not enjoy art which so relies upon emotional involvement and commitment...


Frank Lloyd Wright immediately comes to mind, as well as Wagner. In my experience, creative people can be very narcissistic (read: sociopathic), and Dr. Phil would not let them get away with it. I know a guy I grew up with, whom I condider to be a musical genius, and he is a real a-hole sometimes, who tends to use people, is misogynistic, selfish, and is hard to work with.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

jonatan said:


> It was so hard for me to enjoy and experience music in this evening's concert, when my thoughts again and again were back about so much people who experience hunger, suffering, cruel jobs, poverty, desperation, insecurity, humiliation, slavery and so on, so on. ...
> 
> So much suffering there is around me, but I am this happy man sitting in concert and enjoying music which was beautiful tonight. Do I deserve it?


There has been and will be suffering. While we are morally bound up in its reduction, of course, we are not required to become "another victim" or to get depressed, or to think ill of ourselves for having reasons to smile.

Which is worse, those who are suffering for all the reasons you mention, or those that are _willingly eschewing joy_ in order to more obviously and deeply relate to the suffering. If you are capable of being happy, I cannot believe that anyone would want you to not pursue it, not the least those who cannot escape suffering.

If you think you do not have the right to happiness until nobody is suffering anywhere, I promise you, you will never be happy.

Is not self imposed suffering a sort of stolen valor? Or at least, isn't it insulting to those who cannot escape their suffering.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I also think it is high time to look again at government as a provider of services. There is really very little evidence that government is inefficient in doing this even though nearly everyone these days believes it is. In fact the evidence goes strongly in the direction of demonstrating government efficiency.


I have been championing this little understood fact for many years now.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> trickle-down theories of wealth creation have long been shown to be fallacious justifications for an obscene wealth gap.


I refer to Trickle Down Theory as Pee On Philosophy.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

eljr said:


> I refer to Trickle Down Theory as Pee On Philosophy.


George H. W. Bush referred to it as Voodoo Economics. Then, Ronald Reagan asked him to be his VP. Voodoo Economics is back with a bang, under Trump and what used to be called the Republican Party, now that the Great Recession disappears in the rear-view mirror. Don't worry; be happy!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

eljr said:


> I have been championing this little understood fact for many years now.


Instead of spending billions on the military...


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I don't get such feelings when listening to music. How can you enjoy anything if you carry around the burden of the world like that? But still I get what you mean.
I live in a fairly good and relatively young neighbourhood. Lots of families with young kids. Little crime. I take a walk outside and I look at all the nice houses, the expensive cars, the perfectly maintained front yards. Everyone living comfortably and in safety. Prosperous, well organized. All model citizens and consumers in a thriving western society. And that's when I feel something is off. Can it go that well for us? Is this meant to be? Am I lucky or what? Surely something must go wrong, sooner or later. I don't know if I'd call it guilt, but I realize there is great imbalance in the world.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

How it is possible to enjoy music knowing how much there are suffering people?
It'd be ironic if you asked a blues musician that question...


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> When I was young (in the 1980s) I worked in famine relief and we always knew that the poorest and most vulnerable people would not be found in the poorest and most deprived areas. They could be found in or near the cities or the areas that were still thriving. That is where they could get work. Of course, they were not paid enough to build a life or pay for health care or education for their kids (who were working, too).
> 
> An example from extreme times, I guess, but trickle-down theories of wealth creation have long been shown to be fallacious justifications for an obscene wealth gap.


I wasn't talking about trickle down, but there are real jobs that pay well being provided by owners of large businesses. But perhaps some of the workers are offended because that precludes their collecting a welfare check and sitting home?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> How it is possible to enjoy music knowing how much there are suffering people?
> It'd be ironic if you asked a blues musician that question...


Song: World of Contradictions



> I make my living feeling rotten, but I feel good when I play blues
> I make my living feeling rotten, but I feel good when I play blues
> In this world of contradictions, man what can a poor boy do?
> 
> ...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> When I was young (in the 1980s) I worked in famine relief and we always knew that the poorest and most vulnerable people would not be found in the poorest and most deprived areas. They could be found in or near the cities or the areas that were still thriving. That is where they could get work. Of course, they were not paid enough to build a life or pay for health care or education for their kids (who were working, too).
> 
> An example from extreme times, I guess, but trickle-down theories of wealth creation have long been shown to be fallacious justifications for an obscene wealth gap.


The fact that there are "cities or the areas that were still thriving" proves that trickle-down wealth _does _work, just not for all. The poor have flocked (and still flock) to these prosperous cities in hope that they, too, can better their lives. And maybe they will.

Without the capitalists that built these cities, none of the people in or around the cities, with good jobs or bad jobs, would have any jobs at all. They'd still be steering ploughs through the rice paddies all day, spending their short and miserable lives staring at the wrong end of water buffalos.

I sometimes think there are people who would prefer that everybody live like dirt, so long as they're equal in their misery. That, to them, is preferable to some managing to improve their lives more than others.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Seems to me the thread has veered (no surprise) into a discussion of the reasons and cures of suffering. Likely the oldest topic in the world. 

The original question is much more interesting to me. We all agree there is suffering. We might disagree on the details but there is no argument as to the existence of suffering.

What is in question is how can one be comfortable enjoying classical music knowing there is suffering, horrible suffering, in the world.

None of us (OK very few of us) will ever be in the position to solve world hunger or poverty or political strife, and we all know that nobody is listening or cares about our amazing ideas how to solve these problems.

But we each have to wrestle with the apparent problem, how can we enjoy classical music given the suffering in the world. How do each of us respond and how do each of us feel about how we respond. This is something each of us, almost guaranteed, have to deal with, or ignore, every time we do listen. 

Y'all know my thoughts, posted back way back.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fhdhhdhdhddhdhdh


----------



## Freshair (Nov 14, 2018)

Sorry to jump in but I’m new here and feel the same way as your good chum KenOC - what if it’s currently impossible for everyone to be better off? The path to a utopian society in which everyone is doing great equally might start with one with a lot of inequality. The successes of those who strive to better themselves and further humanity in the latter may someday reach the greater masses.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

KenOC said:


> The fact that there are "cities or the areas that were still thriving" proves that trickle-down wealth _does _work, just not for all. The poor have flocked (and still flock) to these prosperous cities in hope that they, too, can better their lives. And maybe they will.
> 
> Without the capitalists that built these cities, none of the people in or around the cities, with good jobs or bad jobs, would have any jobs at all. They'd still be steering ploughs through the rice paddies all day, spending their short and miserable lives staring at the wrong end of water buffalos.
> 
> I sometimes think there are people who would prefer that everybody live like dirt, so long as they're equal in their misery. That, to them, is preferable to some managing to improve their lives more than others.


In the case of famines caused by drought (which was what my post was about) you often get feasting in cities as farmers sell off their dying livestock to buy the grain that has jumped in price ten or twenty times. It's not a good thing! Furthermore, the gathering of distressed people in slums and camps in the hope of finding work or relief is very far from being a good thing. Much more mortality in drought famines is caused by epidemics (the result of people being displaced and squeezed together in makeshift camps and slums - measles is a big killer, for example) than is actually a result of people starving to death. Meanwhile, if they can't gain sufficient resilience to return and farm for the next season then their niche in the economy is forever lost.

But in the normal times that you are talking of, how does the fact that relatively rich people live in cities prove that trickle down works? Cities don't develop as a benefit to mankind from "capitalism". Your sketch of how cities develop through history is far too simplistic. And don't forget that cities also die. When the industries that led to their growth become obsolete millions of people can be left without hope of a future or much of a life now.

Nor have I criticised capitalism itself: my point is that the state has a big role to play to protect citizens. Trickle down does not do that. It just about keeps them alive. A society in which everyone feels they have a stake is going to be a happier and more productive one.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I wasn't talking about trickle down, but there are real jobs that pay well being provided by owners of large businesses. But perhaps some of the workers are offended because that precludes their collecting a welfare check and sitting home?


Of course there are and that's a great thing. Capitalism can work really well. But taxes are needed to pay for essential services. I would argue that the common good is served by considering transport, police, utilities, health care and education as essential government responsibilities. All these things are needed to help ensure that all can have the essentials of life and the state is more able to run them efficiently. I would also argue that the state should subsidise them if this is needed to make them affordable. It makes sense that the rich in society pay more towards this than the poor.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Freshair said:


> Sorry to jump in but I'm new here and feel the same way as your good chum KenOC - what if it's currently impossible for everyone to be better off? The path to a utopian society in which everyone is doing great equally might start with one with a lot of inequality. The successes of those who strive to better themselves and further humanity in the latter may someday reach the greater masses.


You are welcome to jump in - that's what these threads are for (well, really, it is music and this thread is moving beyond that) - but I'm not sure your are right! There are societies that are much better at equality and social protection than others. They may not be the richest - although they are not poor - but they tend to be the happiest and the societies with the least internal conflict. But if it is not obscene to you that, globally, 1% of the population have more than the remaining 99% I guess you will not be convinced that the happiness and inclusiveness of such states is as worthwhile as the chance to climb higher than your neighbours?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

In my post #66, I urged that one might well become a warrior for rationality in the struggle against human suffering, and fighting for women's equality would be a good place to start. It's also clear, as Enthusiast's posts illustrate, that the social democracies are furthest along the road toward the goals of a healthy, educated, relatively happy population; reduced income and wealth inequality; sustainable population size; and actual hope for a viable future. The USA tags along toward the rear of the pack in most measures of "western" progress, and much may be undone as waves of desparate migrants move out of areas where rationality has little place in governance or cultural norms. A drive toward greater rationality is not a repudiation of capitalism; it is likely capitalism's salvation, as a robust partnership between enlightened government and enlightened capitalism may keep an unfettered capitalism from destroying itself.


----------

