Philantrophy

August 10, 2004 9:18 AM

Is it the start of a moral life when one really acts as though another life is just as important as one's own, or is that an obsession skirting mental illness?
posted by semmi (35 comments total)

kravinsky does seem obsessive in his pursuit of the ideal utilitarian philosophy. in giving up his own kidney, and in his righteous rhetoric, i think he shows his conviction. but this is not the mere start of a moral life, but a picture of an extreme outlook upon morality that has taken years for him to fashion.
posted by moz at 10:04 AM on August 10, 2004

Skirting mental illness? This guy has some issues.
posted by agregoli at 10:14 AM on August 10, 2004

a great bookend to yesterday's discussion of personal debt ...

as rational as Kravinsky is in every aspect of his decision making, it's very hard to think of him "mentally ill," though some of his actions don't qualify as culturally acceptable behavior (especially the whole-body donation).

these ethical questions are very real to me, and i hope many other people. materialism will be *the* biggest issue of this century. subsistence poverty has always been my goal, but the pressures against it are so fucking hard to overcome.

i've been fascinated with Peter Singer since i read his article about world poverty in the NYT. lots more on him here.

to me it's a chicken-egg scenario. most people won't sacrifice for unknown "others," b/c they think those other people wouldn't do the same thing for them. but you have to start somewhere, right?

it also reminded me of John Hogue's Critical Mass of Enlightenment. if there is such a thing as a buddhatomic Christ, Zell Kravinsky is surely one of 'em. those who call him crazy are those who are willing to accept the eternal inevitability of war and famine, cuz it really is all about material wealth.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:16 AM on August 10, 2004

But...he cares more for everyone else in the world that could possibly need his help rather than himself and his own family. That's a little much. Would our world be nicer if everyone was like this? Sure. But is it truly human to do so? I don't think that's a natural human trait. We're supposed to be a bit selfish.

And I do think that war and famine are inevitable. They've been happening since people first started being.
posted by agregoli at 10:40 AM on August 10, 2004

And I do think that war and famine are inevitable. They've been happening since people first started being.

Something always being one way is not an argument for it being inevitable. Try: There have always been slaves since human society began. Slavery is inevitable.

Which is to say, deciding something is inevitable is too often a precursor to not trying to better all of humanity's situation, which is a pretty pathetic excuse. Kravinsky may be a little excessive on the making a difference front, but that is a nice departure from excessivness of the inevitabilty front, and prefereable.
posted by dame at 11:17 AM on August 10, 2004

Kravinsky may be a little excessive on the making a difference front, but that is a nice departure from excessivness of the inevitabilty front, and prefereable.

I suppose it's nice that good is being done, but that said the guy does seem to be a little, well, off. There is a form of OCD called hyperscrupulosity (scroll down). Even if he may be doing good, if he's suffering from it, he's probably feeling mental torment, and I imagine his logic could get kinda twisted and have harmful permuatations.

Just a theory.
posted by jonmc at 11:26 AM on August 10, 2004

His logic is completely correct - but his postulates are flawed. He says that if the lives of others are equal to his, then he has a moral obligation to help other people. This can be reconciled by setting the "value" of life equal to zero - now everyone's life is worth equal, but no one's is worth bothering over. It also compellingly settles a lot of political issues - suddenly the pro-lifers have no leg to stand on, and neither does PETA or greenpeace or any number of political advocate parties.

It's a depressing way to think of the world though. All extremes are empty at the core.
posted by Veritron at 11:29 AM on August 10, 2004

That's a good point jonmc. If he is suffering, then it is a problem. But that's the definition of mental illness, right—that the listed symptoms impair your life and make you unhappy?

I sure hope so, because otherwise I have pretty much every manifestation of OCD listed there.
posted by dame at 11:52 AM on August 10, 2004

If the man is interested in getting as many kidneys as possible to the greatest number of patients who need them, he would support a free market in organs. If people could sell their kidneys at market value, I can assure you that there would be plenty to go around. But by forcing morality into the issue, he assures that the number of kidneys will always be limited by the number of people altruistically motivated to give them up. In other words, he's more interested in his precious little abstractions than in actually helping people.
posted by Faze at 11:59 AM on August 10, 2004

Kravinsky may be a little excessive on the making a difference front, but that is a nice departure from excessivness of the inevitabilty front, and prefereable.


I never said he wasn't a nice guy. But it's not human nature to be totally selfless.

The point I was trying to make was - there always have been, and always will be, humans trying to hurt each other. It's part of the make-up.
posted by agregoli at 12:08 PM on August 10, 2004

If the man is interested in getting as many kidneys as possible to the greatest number of patients who need them, he would support a free market in organs.

He does. It's in the article. He even tried to broker a deal at one point, but the legal question got a bit too much.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:21 PM on August 10, 2004

Incidentally, my great great great great grandfather, George Peabody, invented philanthropy as we know it today. He didn't leave my family shit, unfortunately.
posted by waldo at 12:22 PM on August 10, 2004

It's pretty amazing what he's doing. I don't know if I'd consider it mentally ill, but it's certainly extreme.

I couldn't do something like that, but I've always rationalized it by saying I could do more good with my fortune (if I had one) or my organs by keeping them and using them wisely.

But if I was worth $45 million, sure, I would have no problem, say, paying off all the debts of my close friends and close family members. I can't do it for everyone in the world, but it's a start. Besides, money is so much bullshit anyway-- I would have no problem giving it away, whereas an organ is something I'd have to think about much more seriously. I mean, when I'm dead whoever wants 'em can have 'em, but until then...

Ooh, on another note:

The point I was trying to make was - there always have been, and always will be, humans trying to hurt each other. It's part of the make-up.

Is it? Why is that? Why is it necessary-- why do some people feel the desire to hurt, to exercise that power over someone? Does it stem from anything besides being hurt previously?
posted by nath at 12:29 PM on August 10, 2004

Interesting article -- when I read it in the New Yorker a week or two ago, I was wondering if someone would post it to MeFi.

I especially like how finely-written it is; Kravinsky's wife is clearly less-than-thrilled with his actions and their possible effect on their family.
posted by Vidiot at 12:33 PM on August 10, 2004

Oh, nice thread title, semmi.
posted by Vidiot at 12:34 PM on August 10, 2004

If the man is interested in getting as many kidneys as possible to the greatest number of patients who need them, he would support a free market in organs.

RTFA, dude. seriously. not just the first four paragraphs.

funny, i have very strong OCD tendencies (or so i thought), mostly defined by excessive counting and calculations (endless combinations and permutations), but i didn't see that it there.

it would be depressing to think that morality was related to neurochemistry, though it's cosmically funny, i suppose. perhaps there is a god afterall. he's just a fucker.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:34 PM on August 10, 2004

... there always have been, and always will be, humans trying to hurt each other. It's part of the make-up

then you don't believe in evolution? or you think that we've reached the pinnacle? or that evolutionary theory precludes the type of selflessness that would eradicate violence? seriously, i'm curious.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:36 PM on August 10, 2004

Semmi, this is like the fourth time in the past three weeks that you've posted something to the front page originally from the New Yorker. While I think your posts and the articles you choose are great, you may want to branch out a bit in terms of reading material.
posted by Asparagirl at 1:38 PM on August 10, 2004

Is this man "mentally ill"? Doesn't sound like it, based on the article.

Is he behaving selfishly and uncaringly toward his family by his constant quest to be unselfish and caring to strangers? Sounds like it, based on the article.

I am reminded of Dickens's Mrs. Jellyby, who spent so much time worrying about the poor children of the world that she never noticed that her own children were hungry and lonely.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:48 PM on August 10, 2004

Is it? Why is that? Why is it necessary-- why do some people feel the desire to hurt, to exercise that power over someone? Does it stem from anything besides being hurt previously?

Geez, if I knew that, I'd be making a lot more money than I am now, and would probably be on my way to solving world hatred.

then you don't believe in evolution? or you think that we've reached the pinnacle? or that evolutionary theory precludes the type of selflessness that would eradicate violence? seriously, i'm curious.

Yes, I believe in evolution. Has evolution taken away our basic instincts? We still have fight or flight response, for example. I think that humans are essentially animals (heck, we ARE animals) and despite our attempts at society, there will always be evil and people trying to do wrong to each other. We haven't stopped yet! If humans are around in another couple millions years (don't count on it) perhaps things will have changed, but I doubt it.
posted by agregoli at 1:48 PM on August 10, 2004

I actually think he could be mentally ill. He sounds obsessive-compulsive to me. Obsessions/compulsions can be anything -some people have a compulsion to pray constantly, for example. He sounds like he could have an obsession/compulsion with helping people, and it comes before anything else, including himself and his family.

No way to tell for sure from the article, but I wouldn't be surprised.
posted by agregoli at 2:41 PM on August 10, 2004

I am reminded of Dickens's Mrs. Jellyby, who spent so much time worrying about the poor children of the world that she never noticed that her own children were hungry and lonely.

maybe b/c Bleak House and Mrs. Jellyby are mentioned in the article? ;)

it is an excellent point, however, b/c i think most of us agree that if you are going to have children, (regardless of what you think about the nuclear family) you do have a responsibility to provide everything they need to develop healthily and happily. of course, the minimum level needed is rather subjective.

the article glosses over the children, but i have a feeling that is specifically b/c his wife insisted on leaving them out of it. we do know that they have material comforts ("He invited me into a house crowded with stuff, including a treadmill in the middle of the living room. He cleared away enough books and toys for me to sit down on a sofa.") and that he has set aside considerable trust funds for his wife and all his children.

to compare him to Jellyby does not seem accurate. admittedly, he could be ignoring his children completely, but it certainly doesn't sound like it, as he was babysitting two of them when the reporter showed up. i sincerely doubt that they're "filthy and covered in bruises." and i do think in his ratio-loving mind, he often considers the good he's doing vs. the potential harm he's doing to his family (e.g. "Why don't you just donate me that cheese stick?"). without his family, i'm sure he'd be completely destitute.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:49 PM on August 10, 2004

I'm with agregoli on the obsessive-compulsive.

But--he never left his family without food, or clothing or that kind of stuff (thanks to his wife, i'm thinking), and he did do enormous good, whether he realizes it or not. And it's not like he wouldn't have given his family an organ if they needed one. I guess he never ever felt like he was good enough or worthy--it's sad, and reminds me of all the people with eating disorders, and other control things. Money and property is just that--it's money and property--it doesn't automatically make you happy, or make you a better person for having them (of course, i say that as a pauper).
posted by amberglow at 2:56 PM on August 10, 2004

I think that humans are essentially animals (heck, we ARE animals) and despite our attempts at society, there will always be evil and people trying to do wrong to each other.

i agree mostly with the first part, but i'm still optimistic that you're wrong about the second. (i think) humans are very different from other animals in a variety of crucial ways, most importantly in regard to self-consciousness. i do think that IF the human species (or something close to it) is around in a million years, it will be b/c we figured out how to work together better. i don't think i believe in "evil." i also didn't mean to hijack the thread ...
posted by mrgrimm at 3:00 PM on August 10, 2004

oh, and Veritron--i think it doesn't make everyone worth zero, but makes everyone worth the same enormous amount you yourself are worth, and that's the rub.
posted by amberglow at 3:00 PM on August 10, 2004

MrGrimm, I didn't notice because I found it really really hard to read the whole article on my computer screen in the tiny font my display was set at and gave up after about the equivalent of five pages.

Obviously, if I had noticed the article's reference, I wouldn't have misspelled Mrs. Jellyby's name. Embarrassing, considering I wrote a paper in grad school that discussed the character in detail.

If I may recoup with a little passage anent the lady in question:

"'And begs,'" said Mrs. Jellyby, dictating, "'to inform him, in reference to his letter of inquiry on the African project--' No, Peepy! Not on my account!"

Peepy (so self-named) was the unfortunate child who had fallen downstairs, who now interrupted the correspondence by presenting himself, with a strip of plaster on his forehead, to exhibit his wounded knees, in which Ada and I did not know which to pity most-- the bruises or the dirt. Mrs. Jellyby merely added, with the serene composure with which she said everything, "Go along, you naughty Peepy!" and fixed her fine eyes on Africa again.

However, as she at once proceeded with her dictation, and as I interrupted nothing by doing it, I ventured quietly to stop poor Peepy as he was going out and to take him up to nurse. He looked very much astonished at it and at Ada's kissing him, but soon fell fast asleep in my arms, sobbing at longer and longer intervals, until he was quiet. I was so occupied with Peepy that I lost the letter in detail, though I derived such a general impression from it of the momentous importance of Africa, and the utter insignificance of all other places and things, that I felt quite ashamed to have thought so little about it.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:21 PM on August 10, 2004

I am very uncomfortable with taking this man's actions and trying to classify them as a disorder with no diagnosis beyond the actions themselves which apparently people here cannot take at face value.

I suppose I imagine some totalitarian future where people are diagnosed with "individualism disorder" I dont see how naming leads to understanding here.

I found his actions reasonable and even inspiring. I'm with dame too in that any generalizations about human nature based only on prior history dont carry sufficient weight on their own. In fact, I think one working definition of progress is shedding the weight of history in favor of examining goals, and works and ideas on their own intrinsic merits. Men have always had slaves, women have always been powerless etc. are all things we have (tried to) cast off.

Idealistically, I'd like to think theres some future history book where our age of wars is lumped in with all our previous history in some chapter called "The Age of Barbarism"
posted by vacapinta at 3:50 PM on August 10, 2004

i agree mostly with the first part, but i'm still optimistic that you're wrong about the second. (i think) humans are very different from other animals in a variety of crucial ways, most importantly in regard to self-consciousness.

No offense, grimster, and I hope you're right, but wishin' don't neccessarily make it so. So, in the meantime it behooves us as a species to take a pragmatic view of human virtues and vices.

I am very uncomfortable with taking this man's actions and trying to classify them as a disorder with no diagnosis beyond the actions themselves which apparently people here cannot take at face value.

FWIW, vacapinta, I wasn't diagnosing the guy, merely pointing out that such a syndrome exists. Secular moral doctrine can often be as confusing and contradictory as religious doctrine, which if one thinks too hard about it, can result in strange behavior.
posted by jonmc at 4:32 PM on August 10, 2004

... wishin' don't neccessarily make it so.

how about hopin' ...

and no offense intended, Sidhevil. i found the text very eye-straining myself, and your comment an insightful one.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:35 PM on August 10, 2004

Is it the start of a moral life when one really acts as though another life is just as important as one's own...

Perhaps the problem is in the axiom. Why the assumption that your own life is important? Why do self-important people think they have a right to go around trying to change other people's lives? They do it for their own ego, rather than for someone else's benefit.

Instead, if you understand that you aren't very important at all, and nothing else is really that important either, isn't it easier to give a gift? If nothing comes of it, no great loss, but if the gift means something good happens, you can appreciate it all the more.

The emphasis is truly changed to the other person. And isn't that what you said you hoped for in the first place?
posted by kablam at 5:52 PM on August 10, 2004

previous discussion here btw (although first link no longer works)
posted by obloquy at 8:10 PM on August 10, 2004

It is the start of a moral life when one realizes there is no distinction between self and nonself.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:08 AM on August 11, 2004

morality is a set of rules. the start of a moral life is applying any set of moral rules w/o exception.

but morality isn't the be all end all...

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos.

everything does = 0. This is neither bad nor good, joyful or depressing.

This guy isn't any more or less moral than a pimp. He desires things. He sacrifices other things to appease those desires.
posted by ewkpates at 7:37 AM on August 11, 2004

He says that if the lives of others are equal to his, then he has a moral obligation to help other people. This can be reconciled by setting the "value" of life equal to zero - now everyone's life is worth equal, but no one's is worth bothering over.

See: Nihilism
posted by joquarky at 3:35 PM on August 11, 2004

A week later I came upon this article giving the medical perspective on "scrupulosity".
posted by semmi at 10:56 AM on August 17, 2004