Question Eight: Where is the Humanitarian Section?

Online newspapers, following the printed tradition, section their sites into domestic, international, business, environmental, etc. pages. Where's the humanitarian section? This question is obviously not just about the layout of online and printed newspapers. It seems strange to me that there is not enough demand for humanitarian news that newspapers don't carry this section.

Question Seven: Why Bother?

Does it really matter if we're all going to die anyway? This is a very serious question, since I would not have this website if this "why bother?" mentality was not so prevalent. It's not just "we all die anyway." There's also, "it doesn't help, anyway," and "why should I do something for them if they've done nothing for me?" These are real attitudes towards humanitarianism that I've run across from time-to-time. How do we address them?

Question Six: What Things are Related to Humanitarianism?

What of things related to humanitarianism (e.g. pollution, global warming, deforestation, etc.)? Can we call ourselves humanitarians if we ignore these things?

Question Five: Should we be helping people thousands of miles away?

In this so-called globalized world, do you think we should be helping people thousands of miles away just as much as we would help people at home? Do you think you (or people in general) are doing as much as you can to help, within reason?

This question was touched up in the las, but a focus on "aid at home" versus "aid abroad" might have interesting moral implications that resonate in other questions. Perhaps there's a sound distinction between "us" and "them"?

Question Four: Should humanitarian aid be limited to charity?

Should humanitarian aid be limited to charity, or should it be mandatory?

A similar question is posed by Peter Singer, famous for his essay Famine, Affluence and Morality. He argues that "[t]he traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn." Traditionally, our society views giving to charity as generosity: there is no moral imperative to do so, and it is just as well not to give.

That was the case almost 40 years ago, and it still seems to be the case today. I think most people are able to admit, to themselves and to others, that they don't give enough. I know I don't. I know I try more than others, but I know I don't give enough. So what keeps us doing this? Why, when we can admit that we're not doing the right thing, does this continue?

Question Three: What does it mean to be a human being?

(3) What does it mean to be a human being as opposed to an animal? Is to be human being to be a rational animal, or should there also be room for emotion as well? What about mentally challenged individuals? Are they human beings as well? Should other primates be considered human beings if they exhibit the same intellectual capacity as humans whom we consider human beings?

Many consider these academic questions that bare no relevance to the lived human experience. I disagree. The answer to these questions have important implications. Just think about the difference between a human being that is a rational animal plagued by emotions, and a human being whose rationality is intertwined with her/his emotions. Both conceptions of humanity, among others, have their adherents and influence the day-to-day decisions of us all.

Question Two: What does humanitarianism apply to?

What does humanitarianism apply to? Does it apply to humans only, or can it apply to animals, the environment, etc.? (I have somewhat altered these questions from their original formulation).

These questions seem relatively easy to answer, but each answer brings up a myriad of other questions. These are essentially questions of humanity's separation/inclusion in nature. I think that answering these questions will, in the end, change the practical nature of humanitarianism. We might begin to see human beings within a broader scope that includes the natural world. In addition to simply sending aid to those already in need and preventing foreseeable humanitarian crises, we might also take measures to protect our world in ways that do not have wholly foreseeable ends. Global warming is a good example. Whether we are for climate action or against it, our position is one of uncertainty. We can't know exactly what is going to happen. We can only listen to the experts and go from there. Yet, at the heart of our own personal decisions about climate change we should be considering any action as a measure to protect humanity. That is the bigger picture that many people miss, no matter what the issue.