I have this desire to get a degree. Due to a past which involved laziness and other irresponsible traits and lack of being decisive with a “career path”, I am now 23 years of age and still have a good four semesters left until the desired degree is achieved. I am pursuing a degree in Youth and Family Ministry with a minor in Behavioral Sciences. No, I’m not trying to sound all snobbish by stating my minor, I just like the way it sounds. I only declared a minor because I had taken so many extra unnecessary classes at other fine academic establishments, such as Oakland Community College and Macomb Community College, that it just worked out that way.

Anyway, my desire to be done with school (for now- I highly look forward to seminary! {note: read the preceding sentence with much sarcasm}) led me to take what is known as a “Maymester” class. This class took place for 3 consecutive weeks, Monday through Friday, 9am – 12pm. As much as I did not appreciate having to wake up every day to sit in class, I think I would much rather have college be ran like this, that way one could take two classes every three weeks and end up taking 10 classes in 15 weeks! That’s easily 60 credits a year! No longer would college be a 4-10 year reign of tyranny!

The Maymester class I took was Introduction to Ethics. The class entailed us discussing the different moral philosophies that each one of us uses to determine our morality, our sense of wrong or right. I thoroughly enjoyed the class and to be honest, found it quite insightful. One day in class we were discussing other models of moral philosophy that don’t fall into any of the other major categories of moral philosophy. We began to discuss a man by the name of Peter Singer and what has been come to be known as “The Singer Principle”. This is what it states;

“If you can prevent something bad from happening at the cost of something less bad, you ought to do it”

He illustrates it quite simply and for some almost logical:

“If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of a child would presumably be a very bad thing.”

Now this illustration should make perfect sense to all of us who are logical, moral human beings. But take the principle and begin to apply it elsewhere. Here’s another illustration;

“If the cost of providing a child in an impoverished, famine stricken country is $50 a year and I spend $500 on (insert vice/luxury here {examples: electronics, clothes, coffee} then what I am saying is I care more about whatever I spend my money on then I do about feeding a starving child.”

This is morally wrong, to claim with your actions that your wants are more important then the feeding of a child or any other social injustice you choose to ignore.

Now as you continue to think through different situations, I am sure that you can find a fault with Singer’s principle. And of course one must also be discerning in the manner of giving, providing, and loving others and being responsible with what one has been given and with one’s own provision.

You don’t have to agree with the principle but the conviction it stirs up is perhaps necessary and quite deserving of thought.

What do I care about? What am I compassionate about? Am I intentional in the way I love others, the way I care for others? Do I strive to make a difference or do I think about these things only when brought up and then quickly return to being lost in complacency and self-desire?

What do you do?

a word from a more poetic man then I

“When all the love in the world
Is right here among us
And hatred too
And so we must choose
What our hands will do…

And the problem it seems
Is with you and me
Not the Love who came
To repair everything

Where there is pain
Let there be grace
Where there is suffering
Bring serenity
For those afraid
Help them be brave
Where there is misery
Bring expectancy
And surely we can change
Surely we can change
Something”