(토요모임) [ 2nd Feb. 2019 ] Saturday meeting topic

[Scarlet]

Howdy ! 

It's me Scarlett !   

This week we will talk about the ' Sustainable Development, Challenging spirit & Morality '   Do not be obsessed with all the articles too much. Just pick some articles what you have interests and prepare your opinions related to those articles. :) 

Hope you enjoy the topics. 

◈ Sustainable Development

-------- How GDP distorts our view on what is important

◈ Leadership : 

-------- 5 Great Questions to Ask Yourself After a Failure

-------- Why Failure Is Good for Success

-------- Serial Entrepreneurs - How to Pursue Multiple Opportunities

-------- 6 Reasons Why Perfectionism Kills Your Productivity

◈ Social Ethics :

-------- Why Do Good People Form Bad Corporations?
-------- ‘Moral Man and Immoral Society’
-------- Reinhold Niebuhr’s Writing On Religion And Politics: An Interview With Elisabeth Sifton

-------- Where Trust is High, Crime and Corruption are Low

With luv 

Scarlett

-------------------------------------

Is human nature evil? Or is the violence of nature to blame?

| Steven Pinker     

When we see problems in the world, we're quick to blame someone—anyone—who should be providing peace, love, and harmony: politicians, celebrities, parents, etc. But the universe actually bends toward chaos and decay. That's the second law of thermal dynamics. And the most we humans can do is stave off the inevitability of decline through the organization of resources and information. So next time you're feeling particularly outraged, just remember that it's an uphill battle that civilization is fighting.

As Bertolt Brecht said, “Grub first, then ethics.”

A lot of people have an expectation that society ought to work in uniform harmony and affluence, and any deviation from that is an outrage that requires identifying which bad people made it possible.

And when I began Enlightenment Now I wanted to really orient the reader in a very different mindset about the human condition. Namely, as we find ourselves in the universe nothing is expected to work in our favor, beginning with what many scientists consider one of the most fundamental of scientific discoveries, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the law of entropy.

Namely, that in a closed system—one that isn’t receiving inputs of energy or information—disorder naturally increases.

The ability to do useful work/life-enabling structure. Just because there are astronomically so many more ways for things to go wrong than things to go right by any definition of things going right. So right from the start we don’t have any right to expect that the universe is going to be particularly kind to us.

Indeed, the universe is not out to get us, but it just doesn’t care about us, and there’s a lot of ways for things to go wrong unless we deploy energy and information to carve out local zones of beneficial order that keep us alive and healthy and happy.

That’s a different way of just thinking about the human predicament, namely we constantly have to expend effort, intelligence, knowledge in order to make things work, and our background expectation should be that things fall apart.

It’s advances in energy capture that lead to the beneficial complexity of life.

Perhaps back to the axial age, the period of about 800 years in the first millennium B.C. which saw the emergence of a number of moralistic philosophies arising in different parts of the world around the same time.

The age of classical Greek philosophy, the age of the Hebrew prophets, of Confucius, of Buddha, a kind of uncanny coincidence seemingly of movements that went from merely propitiating gods and making sacrifices and begging him for victory and better weather and relief from misfortunes to a more universal system of human betterment, human flourishing.

So what led to this development seemingly in different parts of the world at the same time?

According to one hypothesis by a team of scholars including Ian Morris and Pascal Boyer and Nicolette Molnar, there were gains in energy capture in the ability to use the products of agriculture – oil and fiber and calories from food to allow for a priestly cast separate from the people who actually have to scratch out a living from the ground.

And also, once people’s minds are elevated from just putting a roof over their head—or to keeping the wolf at the door, where their next meal is coming from—they have the cognitive luxury to think about, “What’s it all about? Why are we here? What do we strive for?”

And according to this theory it was something as mundane—but really not mundane—as energy capture: Not mundane given that the second law of thermodynamics determines our fate unless we can push it back.

And so perhaps it’s not such a homely pedestrian explanation for how so many civilizations made this leap to further moral horizons.

Article source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-lLwQ_F8ko

-------------------------------------

How GDP distorts our view on what is important
11 Dec 2018/ Joseph E. Stiglitz/ Professor, Columbia University

What we measure affects what we do. If we focus only on material wellbeing – on, say, the production of goods, rather than on health, education, and the environment – we become distorted in the same way that these measures are distorted; we become more materialistic.
Just under ten years ago, the International Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress issued its report, Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up. The title summed it up: GDP is not a good measure of wellbeing. What we measure affects what we do, and if we measure the wrong thing, we will do the wrong thing. If we focus only on material wellbeing – on, say, the production of goods, rather than on health, education, and the environment – we become distorted in the same way that these measures are distorted; we become more materialistic.
We were more than pleased with the reception of our report, which spurred an international movement of academics, civil society, and governments to construct and employ metrics that reflected a broader conception of wellbeing. The OECD has constructed a Better Life Index, containing a range of metrics that better reflect what constitutes and leads to wellbeing. It also supported a successor to the Commission, the High Level Expert Group on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Last week, at the OECD’s sixth World Forum on Statistics, Knowledge, and Policy in Incheon, South Korea, the Group issued its report, Beyond GDP: Measuring What Counts for Economic and Social Performance.
 

The new report highlights several topics, like trust and insecurity, which had been only briefly addressed by Mismeasuring Our Lives, and explores several others, like inequality and sustainability, more deeply. And it explains how inadequate metrics have led to deficient policies in many areas. Better indicators would have revealed the highly negative and possibly long-lasting effects of the deep post-2008 downturn on productivity and wellbeing, in which case policymakers might not have been so enamored of austerity, which lowered fiscal deficits, but reduced national wealth, properly measured, even more.
Political outcomes in the United States and many other countries in recent years have reflected the state of insecurity in which many ordinary citizens live, and to which GDP pays scant attention. A range of policies focused narrowly on GDP and fiscal prudence has fueled this insecurity. Consider the effects of pension “reforms” that force individuals to bear more risk, or of labor-market “reforms” that, in the name of boosting “flexibility,” weaken workers’ bargaining position by giving employers more freedom to fire them, leading in turn to lower wages and more insecurity. Better metrics would, at the minimum, weigh these costs against the benefits, possibly compelling policymakers to accompany such changes with others that enhance security and equality.
Spurred on by Scotland, a small group of countries has now formed the Wellbeing Economy Alliance. The hope is that governments putting wellbeing at the center of their agenda will redirect their budgets accordingly. For example, a New Zealand government focused on wellbeing would direct more of its attention and resources to childhood poverty.
 
Better metrics would also become an important diagnostic tool, helping countries both identify problems before matters spiral out of control and select the right tools to address them. Had the US, for example, focused more on health, rather than just on GDP, the decline in life expectancy among those without a college education, and especially among those in America’s deindustrialized regions, would have been apparent years ago.
Likewise, metrics of equality of opportunity have only recently exposed the hypocrisy of America’s claim to be a land of opportunity: Yes, anyone can get ahead, so long as they are born of rich, white parents. The data reveal that the US is riddled with so-called inequality traps: Those born at the bottom are likely to remain there. If we are to eliminate these inequality traps, we first have to know that they exist, and then ascertain what creates and sustains them.
A little more than a quarter-century ago, US President Bill Clinton ran on a platform of “putting people first.” It is remarkable how difficult it is to do that, even in a democracy. Corporate and other special interests always seek to ensure that their interests come first. The massive US tax cut enacted by the Trump administration at this time last year is an example, par excellence. Ordinary people – the dwindling but still vast middle class – must bear a tax increase, and millions will lose health insurance, in order to finance a tax cut for billionaires and corporations.
If we want to put people first, we have to know what matters to them, what improves their wellbeing, and how we can supply more of whatever that is. The Beyond GDP measurement agenda will continue to play a critical role in helping us achieve these crucial goals.

Article source : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/how-gdp-distorts-our-view-on-what-is-important?fbclid=IwAR3HXKKOaPRMMFAbwAOB0gBFLqFHFYu_nnhaKZdwgcsK4Zag7NFRqYMaRLc

--------------------------------------------------------

<Questions>

Q1. How would you define Growth? What elements are required to define your growth? 

Q2. Do you think monetary condition can define your happiness? 

Q3. Could you say that our society is better society in status-quo compared to 1970's Korea? 

Q4. What did we get and what did we lose? 

Q5. Have you ever watched the tv program '응답하라 1984' or '응답하라 1987' ? What is the most memorable scene? or something that you want to get again? 

Q6. What are you gonna do this long holiday?

------------------------------------------------------

5 Great Questions to Ask Yourself After a Failure

Paul Sloane

Paul Sloane (B.Eng - Cambridge) is founder and CEO of Destination Innovation, a professional keynote conference speaker, and expert facilitator on innovation and lateral thinking. Full Bio

Let’s face it. We all fail.

As we go through life we have relationships that don’t work out,  jobs that just aren’t right, exams that we flunk, initiatives that don’t succeed. The more new things we try the more failures we are likely to have. In fact, the only way to avoid failure is to do nothing new.

The important thing is how we deal with failure. It can be part of a downward slide in which lack of confidence reinforces feelings of inadequacy and incompetence. But experiencing failure can be a learning experience and an opportunity for a fresh start. A good way to begin this process is by asking yoruself some tough questions.

1.  What can I learn from this?  

Take responsibility for what went wrong. OK, so it was not all your fault – but some of it was. Successful people don’t make excuses or blame others. They take ownership of the issues. Be critical but constructive. Try to look at the experience objectively.  Make a list of the key things that happened. Analyze the list step-by-step and look for the learning points.

2.  What could I have done differently? 

What other options did you have? What choices did you make? How could you have handled it differently? With the benefit of hindsight, what different steps would you have taken?

3.  Do I need to acquire or improve some skills? 

Did the problem reveal some lack of skill on your part? How could you learn or improve those skills? Perhaps there are books or courses or people you could turn to. Make a self-development plan to acquire the skills and experiences you need.

4.  Who can I learn from? 

Is there someone to whom you can turn to for advice? Did a boss, colleague or a friend see what happened? If they are constructive and supportive then ask them for some feedback and guidance. Most people do not ask for help because they believe it to be a sign of weakness rather than strength. It’s not. It shows that you are ready to learn and change. Any good friend will be happy to help.

5.  What will I do next? 

Now draw up an action plan. Will you try something similar or something different? Revisit your goals and objectives. This reversal has been a setback on your journey but think of it as a diversion rather than a halt. You can now reset your sights on your destination and plan a new course.

If you read the life stories of successful people – especially inventors, explorers, scientists or statesmen –  you will find that their early careers are littered with failures. Walt Disney, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford are typical examples. Abraham Lincoln, suffered many defeats in his career in politics including losing the nomination for vice president in 1856 and his second run at being a U.S. Senator in 1858. Two years later he was elected president.

The important point is to use your setbacks as learning experiences and make them stepping stones to future success. There are always positives you can take from every episode in your life. Asking yourself these five questions can help find them.

Article source : http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/5-great-questions-to-ask-yourself-after-a-failure.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Failure Is Good for Success

To achieve the greatest success, you have to embrace the prospect of failure.

Pauline Estrem  August 25, 2016

The sweetest victory is the one that’s most difficult. The one that requires you to reach down deep inside, to fight with everything you’ve got, to be willing to leave everything out there on the battlefield—without knowing, until that do-or-die moment, if your heroic effort will be enough. Society doesn’t reward defeat, and you won’t find many failures documented in history books.

The exceptions are those failures that become steppingstones to later success. Such is the case with Thomas Edison, whose most memorable invention was the light bulb, which purportedly took him 1,000 tries before he developed a successful prototype. “How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?” a reporter asked. “I didn’t fail 1,000 times,” Edison responded. “The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps.”

Unlike Edison, many of us avoid the prospect of failure. In fact, we’re so focused on not failing that we don’t aim for success, settling instead for a life of mediocrity. When we do make missteps, we gloss over them, selectively editing out the miscalculations or mistakes in our life’s résumé. “Failure is not an option,” NASA flight controller Jerry C. Bostick reportedly stated during the mission to bring the damaged Apollo 13 back to Earth, and that phrase has been etched into the collective memory ever since. To many in our success-driven society, failure isn’t just considered a non-option—it’s deemed a deficiency, says Kathryn Schulz, author of Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error. “Of all the things we are wrong about, this idea of error might well top the list,” Schulz says. “It is our meta-mistake: We are wrong about what it means to be wrong. Far from being a sign of intellectual inferiority, the capacity to err is crucial to human cognition.”

Failure Is Life’s Greatest Teacher

When we take a closer look at the great thinkers throughout history, a willingness to take on failure isn’t a new or extraordinary thought at all. From the likes of Augustine, Darwin and Freud to the business mavericks and sports legends of today, failure is as powerful a tool as any in reaching great success. “Failure and defeat are life’s greatest teachers [but] sadly, most people, and particularly conservative corporate cultures, don’t want to go there,” says Ralph Heath, managing partner of Synergy Leadership Group and author of Celebrating Failure: The Power of Taking Risks, Making Mistakes and Thinking Big. “Instead they choose to play it safe, to fly below the radar, repeating the same safe choices over and over again. They operate under the belief that if they make no waves, they attract no attention; no one will yell at them for failing because they generally never attempt anything great at which they could possibly fail (or succeed).”

However, in today’s post-recession economy, some employers are no longer shying away from failure—they’re embracing it. According to a recent article in BusinessWeek, many companies are deliberately seeking out those with track records reflecting both failure and success, believing that those who have been in the trenches, survived battle and come out on the other side have irreplaceable experience and perseverance.

“The quickest road to success is to possess an attitude 

toward failure of ‘no fear.’ ”

 

They’re veterans of failure. The prevailing school of thought in progressive companies—such as Intuit, General Electric, Corning and Virgin Atlantic—is that great success depends on great risk, and failure is simply a common byproduct. Executives of such organizations don’t mourn their mistakes but instead parlay them into future gains. “The quickest road to success is to possess an attitude toward failure of ‘no fear,’ ” says Heath. “To do their work well, to be successful and to keep their companies competitive, leaders and workers on the front lines need to stick their necks out a mile every day.

They have to deliver risky, edgy, breakthrough ideas, plans, presentations, advice, technology, products, leadership, bills and more. And they have to deliver all this fearlessly—without any fear whatsoever of failure, rejection or punishment.”

Reaching Your Potential

The same holds true for personal quests, whether in overcoming some specific challenge or reaching your full potential in all aspects of life. To achieve your personal best, to reach unparalleled heights, to make the impossible possible, you can’t fear failure, you must think big, and you have to push yourself. When we think of people with this mindset, we imagine the daredevils, the pioneers, the inventors, the explorers: They embrace failure as a necessary step to unprecedented success. But you don’t have to walk a tightrope, climb Mount Everest or cure polio to employ this mindset in your own life.

When the rewards of success are great, embracing possible failure is key to taking on a variety of challenges, whether you’re reinventing yourself by starting a new business or allowing yourself to trust another person to build a deeper relationship. “To achieve any worthy goal, you must take risks,” says writer and speaker John C. Maxwell. In his book Failing Forward: Turning Mistakes into Stepping Stones for Success, he points to the example of legendary aviator Amelia Earhart, who set several records and achieved many firsts in her lifetime, including being the first female pilot to fly solo over the Atlantic Ocean.

Although her final flight proved fateful, Maxwell believes she knew the risk—and that the potential reward was worth it. “[Earhart’s] advice when it came to risk was simple and direct: ‘Decide whether or not the goal is worth the risks involved. If it is, stop worrying.’ ” Of course, the risks you take should be calculated; you shouldn’t fly blindly into the night and simply hope for the best. Achieving the goal or at least waging a heroic effort requires preparation, practice and some awareness of your skills and talents.

Easing Into a Fearless Mindset 

“One of the biggest secrets to success is operating 

inside your strength zone but outside of your comfort zone.”

 

“One of the biggest secrets to success is operating inside your strength zone but outside of your comfort zone,” Heath says. Although you might fail incredibly, you might succeed incredibly—and that’s why incredible risk and courage are requisite. Either way, you’ll learn more than ever about your strengths, talents and resolve, and you’ll strengthen your will for the next challenge. If this sounds like dangerous territory, it can be. But there are ways to ease into this fearless mindset.

Maintain a Positive Attitude

The first is to consciouslya mintain a positive attitude so that, no matter what you encounter, you’ll be able to see the lessons of the experience and continue to push forward. “It’s true that not everyone is positive by nature,” says Maxwell, who cites his father as someone who would describe himself as a negative person by nature. “Here’s how my dad changed his attitude. First he made a choice: He continually chooses to have a positive attitude.

Reading and Listening to Motivational Material

Second, he’s continually reading and listening to materials that bolster that attitude. For example, he’s read The Power of Positive Thinking many times. I didn’t get it at first, so once I asked him why. His response: ‘Son, I need to keep filling the tank so I can stay positive.’ ” Heath recommends studying the failures and subsequent reactions of successful people and, within a business context, repeating such histories for others. “Reward them and applaud their efforts in front of the entire organization so everyone understands it is OK to fail.

So employees say to themselves, ‘I see that Bill, the vice president of widgets, who the president adores, failed, and he is not only back at work, but he is driving a hot new sports car. I can fail and come to work the next day. Bill is proof of it.’ ” Finally, Heath stays motivated by the thought that, “if I become complacent and don’t take risks, someone will notice what I am doing and improve upon my efforts over time, and put me out of work. You’ve got to keep finding better ways to run your life, or someone will take what you’ve accomplished, improve upon it, and be very pleased with the results. Keep moving forward or die.”  

Seth Godin: ‘I’ve Failed Way More Times Than I’ve Succeeded’

Article source : http://www.success.com/article/why-failure-is-good-for-success

---

<Questions>

Q1. What is the definition of 'Failure' to you? 

Q2. What is the productive failure? Do you think are there successful failure?   

Q3. What was the biggest failure in your life? How did you react to it? What did you learn from that experience? 

Q4. When you meet any failure in your life, what was your attitude toward that? Was it similar to the responses as above article suggested? 

1.  What can I learn from this?  

2.  What could I have done differently? 

3.  Do I need to acquire or improve some skills? 

4.  Who can I learn from? 

5.  What will I do next? 

Q5. Children try until they succeed if they have something they want to do. They never stop focusing on it. In this perspective, failure is caused by your own barrier or limitations in your mind. What do you learn from children's attitude toward failure? 

Q6. Are you a risk-taker? Do you enjoy try new things? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Serial Entrepreneurs - How to Pursue Multiple Opportunities

Do most great entrepreneurs focus on one idea or pursue many? 

A quick look at billionaire entrepreneurs reveals that most of them are serial entrepreneurs.

Article source : http://fundersandfounders.com/serial-entrepreneurs-how-to-pursue-multiple-opportunities/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 Reasons Why Perfectionism Kills Your Productivity

Ellen Eldridge

As a journalist, marketer and mommy, I enjoy growing things: brands, businesses and babies. Full Bio

Perfectionism sounds like a first world problem, but it stifles creative minds. Having a great idea but doubting your ability to execute it can leave you afraid to just complete and publish it. Some of the most successful inventors failed, but they kept going in pursuit of perfection. On the other end of the spectrum, perfectionism can hinder people when they spend too much time seeking recognition, gathering awards and wasting time patting themselves on the back. Whatever your art, go make good art and don’t spend time worrying that your idea isn’t perfect enough and certainly don’t waste time coming up with a new idea because you’re still congratulating yourself for the last one.

1. Remember, perfection is subjective.

If you’re worried about achieving perfectionism with any single project so much that you find yourself afraid to just finish it, then you aren’t being productive. Take a hard look at your work, edit and revise, then send it our into the world. If the reviews aren’t the greatest, learn from the feedback so you can improve next time.

2. Procrastination masquerades itself as perfectionism.

People who procrastinate aren’t always lazy or trying to get out of doing something. Many who procrastinate do so because perfectionism is killing their productivity, telling them that if they wait a better idea will come to them.

3. Recognize actions that waste time.

Artists and all creative people need time to incubate; those ideas will only grow when properly watered, but if you’re not engaging in an activity that will help foster creativity, you might just be wasting time. Remember to do everything with purpose, even relaxing.

4. Don’t discriminate against your worth.

No one is actually perfect. We often have tremendous ideas or write things that move people emotionally, but no one attains that final state of being perfect. So, don’t get down if your second idea isn’t as good as your first—or vice versa. Perfectionists tend to be the toughest critics of their work, so don’t criticize yourself. You are not your work no matter how good or how bad.

5. Stress races your heart and freezes your innovation.

Stress is a cyclic killer that perfectionists know well because that same system that engages and causes your palms to sweat over a great idea is the same system that kicks in and worries you that you’re not good enough. Perfectionism means striving for that ultimate level, and stress can propel you forward excitedly or leave you shaking in fear of the next step.

6. Meeting deadlines beats waiting for perfect work.

Don’t let your fear of failure prevent you from meeting your deadline. Perfection is subjective and if you’re wasting time or procrastinating, you should just finish the job and learn from any mistakes. Being productive means completing work. You shouldn’t try for months or even years to perfect one project when you can produce projects that improve over time.

Article source : http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/6-reasons-why-perfectionism-kills-your-productivity.html

---

<Questions>

Q1. When you are dealing with any tasks, do you try many ideas at once or do you go for one big idea only? 

Q2. How would you describe yourself between a perfectionist and a risk-taker?

Q3. What is the required attitude in your work place? A perfectionism or a risk-taking attitude? 

Q4. What is the strength & the weakness of being a perfectionist? 

Q5. What is the merits & the demerits of being a risk-taker? 

Q6. Are you good at multitasking? 

Q7. Sometimes we have to deal with various chances concurrently. If this is the case, how do you pursue multiple opportunities at once? Do you have your own ways to be a multi-tasker? 

Q8. Do you have a visionary and serial map for your life goal? 

------------------------------------------

Why Do Good People Form Bad Corporations?
03/27/2010 05:12 am ET Updated May 25, 2011

Reinhold Niebuhr was one of Martin Luther King’s favorite theologians. Niebuhr is President Obama’s favorite theologian, too.  It’s too bad the Supreme Court doesn’t read theology.  If they did, their decision to grant organizations carte blanche in political contributions might have been different.

But no matter that, what’s done is done. The question is: Where do we go from here? I’d suggest we all bone up on Niebuhr’s work. If we did, we’d begin to understand why good organizations go bad. And who knows? We might even come up with some thoughtful, workable alternatives to Business As Usual. Rather than just demonizing and vilifying corporations, let’s try to understand them. We can’t change what we don’t understand.
So, here is a quick crash course on German theologian Reinhold Niebuhr: He was the author of one of the most beloved prayers in the Western World, second only to the Lord’s Prayer in popularity. Niebuhr’s prayer is commonly known as The Serenity Prayer:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

courage to change the things I can,

and wisdom to know the difference.
It’s easy to see how this prayer serves as a guiding principle for President Obama, who demonstrates ample courage in changing the things - and wisdom as he struggles to discern between the things he cannot change and those he can.  If he errs, it is on the side of courage - perhaps he tackles too much. But we shouldn’t be surprised or dismayed. After all, remember, Obama was the candidate whose mantra is “Change.” 
And don’t we want a visionary President who sees what’s possible and tries to enroll us in a vision of our own greatness? Isn’t that better than a President who errs on the side of the Serenity Prayer’s “acceptance”? Would we want someone who simply accepts Business As Usual?
As powerful and wonderful as the Serenity Prayer is, Reinhold Niebuhr made an equally important contribution to pubic life in his book, MORAL MAN AND IMMORAL SOCIETY: A Study in Ethics and Politics. Here’s the central thesis:  Good people decide to come together to address a problem or accomplish a goal. These are basically moral people - not saints, of course, but good people.  They organize themselves to form the Red Cross, the United Way, the US Congress, or a church, a hospital, a labor union, a civil rights  group, an animal rescue group, etc.  You name the group, it was started by good people with noble purpose in their hearts.
But something happens when these people come together. The whole becomes greater than just the sum of its parts. The group takes on a life of its own and becomes like a living organism ... and this organism, this group, somehow evolves from its initial moral purpose into immoral self-interest. That is, over time, the group’s number one goal becomes self-preservation - at all costs.  Ego, pride, greed, and power all creep into the group and pervert its noble purpose and moral character.  Thus, ultimately, ALL groups of people become immoral, simply by virtue of the inherent nature of groups.

These groups never willingly go out of business - even if their initial cause is accomplished. They find a reason to continue to exist, because remember: Their number one goal is survival - self-perpetuation.
This is how a church, initially dedicated to a noble purpose, becomes an immoral organization that harbors and protects child molesters - the church has become corrupted by self-interest.  Niebuhr would say it’s the same with all religious and/or philanthropic groups - as well as civil rights organizations, first aid rescue groups, disease-focused organizations.  Any and all groups ultimately lose their morality simply because the group is no longer a collection of moral people - it has taken on a life of its own, and that life is inherently immoral, corrupted in spite of their good intentions.
We can see this even more clearly in labor unions, political parties, citizen action groups, and others who initially organized themselves for very good reasons.  Over time, they all turn immoral to a greater or lesser degree, as their top priority becomes self-interest.
So, what’s the answer to this problem? Reinhold Niebuhr says, “Other groups.”  It sounds paradoxical, I know.  But the only thing that can hold an immoral group in check is other immoral groups!  Call it checks and balances. Call it the politics of special interest groups. Call it what you will, it’s the only solution Niebuhr saw for the inherent immorality of groups.
In other words, these groups of moral people, whose organizations have become immoral, are held in check by other groups who are watching out for their self-interest, too!
You can see how Niebuhr’s ideas and concepts would appeal to President Obama and to Martin Luther King, too - both clear-eyed pragmatists - realists who understood human nature and the ethics of group dynamics. 

Article source : https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-gallagher/why-do-good-people-form-b_b_433616.html

------------------------------------------

‘Moral Man and Immoral Society’
09/23/2013 01:17 pm ET Updated Nov 23, 2013
Rev. Al Sharpton, President and Founder, National Action Network
 
This past Sunday, I delivered a speech at an annual event held in honor of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr at Elmhurst College just outside of Chicago.  It was in fact Niebuhr’s book, Moral Man and Immoral Society, that I read as a youngster and that still resonates with me today when I reflect upon our remaining challenges as a nation.  Before I spoke to those gathered at Elmhurst, my thoughts went immediately to that book and the immoral society created by policies enacted and upheld by some in power today.   After a week which began with 12 killed at a Navy Yard shooting in Washington, and continued with 13 shot at a South Side park in Chicago, we still can’t get Congress to pass legislation on background checks.  Some elected officials are so quick to give tax breaks and subsidies to the rich, and then turn around and cut billions from the food stamp program.  Neibuhr talked about an immoral society, and today’s right-wing likes to hold itself to high and mighty standards, but doesn’t hesitate to stomp on the most vulnerable among us. Talk about a double standard.
Personal responsibility.  We see pundits, Party leaders and talking heads on the right continuously tout personal responsibility. But they conveniently forget that personal responsibility includes a duty to create communities and environments where everyone can feel secure and have a chance to excel.  We’re living in an era where the right-wing installs personal morality, but institutionalizes inequity.  Instead of allowing kids to stay on their parent’s insurance, or give those with pre-existing conditions health care, they would rather shut government down.  With all that is at stake, they choose to play games with the nation’s economy.  Working mothers and fathers don’t have time to play games.  The man or woman working two or three jobs just to feed their children do not have time for games.  The veteran returning from combat and looking for work does not have time to play games.  The child in desperate need of life-saving surgery does not have time for games.  The person burying a loved one who died suddenly at the hands of gun violence doesn’t have time for games.  And the middle-class and poor who were the biggest victims of the economic crisis of ‘08 definitely do not have time or patience for games.
It’s easy to sit in Congress or in a gated secluded community and talk down to people. When you are removed from reality and removed from the everyday struggles of hard-working folks, you have no concept of what they overcome day in and day out. Some are quick to tell people who are literally pulling pennies together to feed their children that they need to work harder.  House Republicans don’t hesitate to cut nearly $40 billion in food stamps while they continue enjoying their paychecks and scheduled vacation time. Many give in to NRA pressure and lobbying efforts, meanwhile our society grows increasingly unsafe with the proliferation of guns everywhere.  Moral people should reflect a moral society.  One cannot consider themselves even remotely moral when they demonize the poor, and create further inequality in the country.
Within the next few weeks, I will be taking an apartment in the city of Chicago in order to continue raising awareness on the epidemic of gun violence. I don’t have all the answers.  Nobody does. But just because a task is challenging, that does not mean we simply shrug our shoulders and do nothing.  It is the duty of everyone with a voice to raise questions publicly and consistently, with the goal that together we can find solutions. The answer is not attacking the impoverished, threatening a government shutdown, attempting to defund a program that will give millions health care and pretending to be moral figures while behaving like the biggest sinners when it comes to others.

This is precisely what Niebhur talked about.  Those that seek to be personally moral must also make sure that our government and institutions reflect the same principles.  Anything less is a disgrace to the definition of morality.

Article source : https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/moral-man-and-immoral-soc_b_3976173.html

--------------------------------------------------

Reinhold Niebuhr’s Writing On Religion And Politics: 

An Interview With Elisabeth Sifton

RELIGION 04/07/2015 02:24 pm ET Updated Apr 07, 2015 

The Library of America has published Reinhold Niebuhr: Major Works on Religion and Politics, which gathers four of his books, along with writings on contemporary events from the 1920s to the 1960s, a selection of prayers, and sermons and lectures on faith and belief. The volume is edited by Niebuhr’s daughter Elisabeth Sifton, an editor and book publisher for forty years and the author of The Serenity Prayer: Faith and Politics in Times of Peace and War.
The Library of America recently interviewed Sifton on why Niebuhr’s writings continue to fascinate and challenge today’s readers.  This interview is published with permission.
What’s the aim of this collection, what sorts of pleasures, discoveries, and insights do you hope readers will find?
Reinhold Niebuhr, my father, was a writer and thinker who engaged fully in his times—from 1914 and World War I, through the heady 1920s, into the Great Depression, then World War II, the “nuclear age” and the Cold War. This book shows how he wrestled with the spiritual and political issues of those times: many of them are with us still, and some are with us always. In America—where he was born and raised, his very German name notwithstanding—he worked for better working conditions for people caught up in the rush of industrialization, he called for social justice in all our communities, and he strove for better relations between races. In international affairs, he ceaselessly advocated policies that would lessen the risk of war, and he argued that a rich and newly powerful nation like the US should learn better how to conduct itself vis-à-vis other nations. I hope readers will find wisdom here that deepens their understanding of our world today.
Why Reinhold Niebuhr in The Library of America? How would you characterize his contribution/legacy? His influence?
Niebuhr has been described as the most important American theologian of the twentieth century and as an especially influential American progressive. He knew how hard it was to alter entrenched power structures, but he combined his tough-minded political realism with a sympathetic understanding of society’s injustices and cruelties. Both his secular work and his theology became famous thanks to his memorable gifts as a public speaker, his huge productivity as a writer and teacher, and his frequent participation in national political discussions. In all these activities he never stopped being a pastor, which is how he started (he thought of himself more as a pastor than a theologian).
How would you characterize Niebuhr’s contribution as a public intellectual during the years covered by this volume?
He tried to wake people up to the inequities and failures in American society. He thought it deplorable that Americans were by and large so self-confidently certain of their basic goodness—meanwhile ignoring not only their own inadequacies (sins?) but also the threats and dangers to American democracy and to the world—whether human (in the form of fascist dictators) or material (nuclear weapons). His sermons and speeches were famous for the clarity and urgent force he gave to his exploration of these themes. One key opinion that infused both his theological and secular work was that possessing superior power or force does not make a person or a state wiser or braver, but it does heighten the danger of sinful hubris.
As a religious thinker?
I’m not qualified to answer this, but perhaps we can say that he sharpened and deepened the discourse about Christian ethics, Christian interpretations of the Gospels and Epistles, Christian understanding of secular society. He was a radical critic of much of American religious life, well known for the vigor with which he made his unclouded assessments. Again, he feared and decried the hubris of so many secular and religious leaders.
Did his thinking and writing fundamentally evolve over the years charted by the works in this collection?
Yes, it did. When he wrote Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932) he considered himself a social-democratic Marxist, but the traumas and dangers of the Depression led him to rethink his Marxist presuppositions and reformulate his ideas on the dynamics of social change and betterment. And, as he writes in “An End to Illusions,” included in the volume, he resigned from the Socialist Party in 1940 because he couldn’t go along with its isolationist refusal to take action against the fascists threatening Europe. Thereafter one sees a deepening and refinement of his positions. He insisted always on the important distinction to be made between Communism and socialism.
The fame and influence of The Irony of American History (1952) have made Niebuhr’s contribution to an understanding of American foreign policy well known, but can his thought also be brought to bear on domestic political considerations—such as inequality in America?
Yes, certainly. Indeed, Niebuhr believed that domestic and foreign policies were, and should be, related to each other; only despots or would-be despots separated them. As this book shows, America’s social-political-economic life, and the disparities separating rich and poor, were major concerns for Niebuhr from the very start of his ministry until his death a half-century later.
How might Niebuhr have responded to the widening gap between rich and poor that we see today?
I can’t “channel” my father, but it’s clear in everything he wrote and did that he considered social and economic inequities as unethical, immoral, even sinful. And he denounced the self-delusions and proud deceits that people invoke to preserve them. One prayer, included in this volume, reads in part: “We confess the indifference and callousness with which we treat the sufferings and the insecurity of the poor, and the pettiness which mars the relations between us. May we with contrite hearts seek once more to purify our spirits, and to clarify our reason so that a fairer temple for the human spirit may be built in human society.”

How might Niebuhr have responded to the new sorts of religious extremism we see with al Qaeda and now ISIS?
He frequently inveighed against religious fanaticism and against theocrats, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or secular (as in the Soviet Union under Stalin). Al Qaeda and ISIS are new for us, but the history of violence-prone religious extremism is, tragically, as old as that of civilization itself. He could not have supported a foreign policy that requires America to battle jihadism around the globe while ignoring the social and spiritual strife that gives rise to it in the first place.
The LOA collection opens with Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic (1929), a very personal and accessible book. How would you characterize its importance?
Niebuhr in his old age would shake his head over the popularity of his first book. But it’s never gone out of print for good reason: these pages from the diary he kept at Bethel Church in Detroit in the 1920s are disarmingly honest about the emotional, psychological, and spiritual dilemmas faced by inexperienced young pastors, and ever since it first appeared almost ninety years ago, inexperienced young pastors, priests, and teachers have found its counsels wise and its candor refreshing.
What does it tell us about Niebuhr’s only pastorate, and about his experiences in an ascendant Detroit?
Well, Detroit wasn’t quite his only pastorate: when his pastor father died in 1913, he left divinity school and returned to Lincoln, Illinois, to fill in there for a time. But to answer the question, the book shows you his first encounters with brutal capitalism at full throttle, which is what Detroit was experiencing in the 1920s in the new automobile factories. He witnessed at first hand the spiritual crises that people face when unstable social and economic conditions encourage divisive politics. And it deeply affected him.
How did you decide which of the uncollected pieces to include?
Few of the previous (and partial) collections of his writings included his copious journalism about national and international events as they occurred. We had hundreds of short articles to choose from, articles that were probably read by as many people as read his books or heard his sermons. I wanted to show them in chronological order, so that one could observe the speed and precision with which he addressed himself to crises in the headlines.
What’s the most interesting discovery you made in the course of putting the volume together?
When I put the journalism together with the sermons and lectures, I began to see how he often approached a given theme or issue: first, maybe writing an essay about it or preaching on a Biblical text he thought relevant to it, then exploring it further in a lecture, writing about it some more, perhaps, and praying about it. This kind of recycling pattern allowed him to finish an incredible number of assignments in any given week, but also gave him a way to re-examine and deepen his initial ideas.
What’s the most important thing you learned as a writer and thinker from your father’s example?
To be unafraid of prevailing, stifling orthodoxies.
Did he offer you practical advice?
Not really, but the Serenity Prayer is the best possible form of daily instruction.
President Obama has expressed his great admiration for Niebuhr as a thinker. Would Niebuhr have returned the compliment?
I am sure he’d have been happy to see such an intelligent, principled, brave black man in the White House—and a Democrat from Illinois, the state where he grew up, no less!
Do you have a favorite piece in the collection?
My father preached more than once on the mysterious Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, so one version of such a sermon is included; it’s a great example of his theological and moral subtlety about human life. And my favorite paragraph in his writing comes from chapter 3 of The Irony of American History:
Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint. Therefore we must be saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness.

Article source : https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/07/reinhold-niebuhr-religion_n_7019384.html

--------------------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. Why Do Good People Form Bad Corporations, organization or community?

Q2. Do you have any examples which shows above sentence? 

Q3. Are Humans Good or Evil?

Q4. Bad people have better performance? 

Q5. Do you have any examples which shows above sentence? 

--------------------------------------------------

Where Trust is High, Crime and Corruption are Low

Since Communism's Fall, Social Trust Has Fallen in Eastern Europe

APRIL 15, 2008

by Richard Wike, Associate Director and Kathleen Holzwart, Research Analyst, Pew Global Attitudes Project

“Trust,” political scientist Eric Uslaner has written, “is the chicken soup of social life.”1 Over the last two decades, social scientists have repeatedly suggested that good things tend to happen in societies where people tend to trust each other — they have stronger democracies, richer economies, better health, and they suffer less often from any number of social ills.

As the 2007 Pew Global Attitudes survey highlighted, the degree of trust in societies varies considerably around the world.2 Moreover, while the survey finds that social trust is not strongly correlated with our measures of democracy or economic performance, it is strongly correlated with views about two other important issues: crime and corruption. In countries where people generally trust one another, there are fewer worries about crime or corrupt political leaders.

The survey also found that in Eastern Europe — a region where concerns about corruption are widespread — the tumultuous changes that followed the fall of communism have taken their toll on social trust. The percentage of Russians, Ukrainians and Bulgarians who believe most people are trustworthy has declined steeply since the early 1990s.

Chinese, Swedes Most Trusting

Among the 47 countries included in the 2007 poll, China had the highest level of social trust: Almost eight-in-ten Chinese (79%) agreed with the statement “Most people in this society are trustworthy.” Although no other Asian nation matches China’s score, levels of trust are relatively high in the region, with majorities in Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and India saying most people in their respective countries can be trusted.

Swedes (78%) came in a very close second to the Chinese on the social trust scale. The results from elsewhere in Western Europe indicated something of a north-south divide — while most Swedes, Brits, and Germans said people in their countries are generally trustworthy, fewer than half in France, Spain, and Italy agreed. Meanwhile, Eastern Europeans tend to resemble their more southern neighbors on this issue. At 50%, Russians exhibited the highest level of trust among the Eastern European countries included in the study.

Trust also tends to run low in the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa, although in all three regions substantial variation is seen. For instance, while nearly six-in-ten Egyptians (58%) believed most people can be trusted, only 27% of Kuwaitis took this position. Similarly, in Latin America levels of trust ran from 51% in Venezuela down to 28% in Peru. Among African nations, Malians were roughly split between those who agree (49%) that most of their fellow citizens are trustworthy and those who disagree (51%), while Kenyans, with 25% agreeing and 75% disagreeing, were much more pessimistic in this poll, which was conducted several months before the outbreak of violence that followed last December’s contested presidential election.

Since Harvard’s Robert Putnam advanced his “bowling alone” thesis in the mid-1990s, numerous researchers have found evidence suggesting that America’s social capital has declined over the last half century.3 However, as the Pew survey demonstrates, when it comes to social trust (one indicator of social capital), Americans still compare quite favorably with other publics — 58% believe others in this society can be trusted. Only the Chinese, Swedish, Canadian, and British publics express greater levels of social trust.

Trust and Crime

High levels of social capital and social trust have been linked to any number of positive social outcomes, including low crime rates. Looking at research on crime in U.S. states and neighborhoods, Putnam finds that places with low social capital tend to be more dangerous. More recently, sociologists Steven Messner, Eric Baumer, and Richard Rosenfeld have found a link between a community’s level of social trust and its homicide rate.4 And, as data from the 2007 Pew survey demonstrates, there is evidence that the relationship between social trust and crime exists outside the U.S. as well.

As the figure below illustrates, in countries with high levels of trust, people are generally less likely to say crime is a very big problem for their country (the correlation coefficient for responses to the two questions is -.56). Most of the countries surveyed fit the overall pattern, including the United States, where concerns about crime are about where one would expect, given the relatively high degree of social trust.

There are, however, some outliers. For example, South Africans — who have been plagued by crime in recent years — are more concerned about crime than would be expected, based solely on their level of social trust. Meanwhile, crime fears are even less common in Sweden and China than their high levels of trust would have predicted.

Trust and Corruption

The 2007 Pew survey found that in countries where people generally trust one another, there is also more confidence in the integrity of political leaders. As the figure below shows, the relationship between trust and corruption resembles the one between trust and crime. The percentage of people rating corrupt political leaders as a very big problem tends to be lower in countries that have high levels of trust such as Sweden, Canada, and Britain (the correlation coefficient is -.54). On the other hand, in nations such as Nigeria and Lebanon, trust is rare and concerns about political corruption are widespread.

Again, there are outliers. Kuwait is both a low trust and low corruption society. Indonesia is a high trust, high corruption country. And the Swedes are once again even less concerned about corruption than their high score on the trust measure would predict (the question about political corruption was not asked in China, the only country to top the Swedes on trust). Meanwhile, Americans — who have witnessed more than a few high profile political scandals over the last few years — were slightly more concerned about corrupt politicians than would have been expected, based on their reasonably high degree of social trust.

Eastern Europeans also tend to be more worried about corruption than one might anticipate given the level of social trust in the region. In all six Eastern European nations included on the survey, more than half say the issue of corrupt political leaders is a very important problem facing their country. Concern runs especially high in the Czech Republic, where nearly eight-in-ten (78%) see political corruption as a very important problem — only Nigerians express more concern about this issue.

Trust Down in Eastern Europe, Up in West

In the years that have followed the end of communist rule, social trust has waned considerably in several former Eastern Bloc countries. Since the 1991 Pulse of Europe survey conducted by the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (a predecessor of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press), the percentage of people saying most of their fellow citizens can be trusted has declined by double digits in Bulgaria, Russia, and Ukraine. In 1991 — two years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and just months before the final collapse of the Soviet Union — solid majorities in all three countries said most people could be trusted, but by 2007 these numbers had slipped to 44% in Bulgaria, 50% in Russia, and 47% in Ukraine.

The pattern has been quite different, however, in Western Europe, where social trust has increased significantly in France, Britain, and Italy. In 1991, both France and Italy scored quite low on this measure — only 33% of Italians and even fewer Frenchmen (29%) trusted most people in their countries. By 2007, these figures had risen to 41% in Italy and 45% in France, still generally lower than elsewhere in Europe, but significantly improved from the early 1990s. With the highest level of trust in Europe, the percentage of the British who agree that most people can be trusted has also increased significantly, jumping from 55% in 1991 to 65% in 2007.

Despite concerns about decreasing social capital, the degree of social trust in the United States is basically the same as it was in 1991. Then, 55% of Americans said most people in society can be trusted, compared with 58% who expressed this view in the 2007 poll.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Uslaner, Eric. 2000-2001. “Producing and Consuming Trust.” Political Science Quarterly. 115:4. ↩
2. The 2007 Pew Global Attitudes survey was conducted April-May 2007 among representative national samples in all countries except Bolivia, Brazil, China, India, Ivory Coast, Pakistan, South Africa, and Venezuela, where the samples were disproportionately or exclusively urban. For more details see pewglobal.org. ↩
3. See Putnam’s Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (2000). ↩
4. Messner, Steven F., Eric P. Baumer, and Richard Rosenfeld. 2004. “Dimensions of Social Capital and Rates of Criminal Homicide.” American Sociological Review. 69:6. ↩

Article source : http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/uncategorized/social-trust-is-one-of-the-most-important-measures-that-most-people-have-never-heard-of-and-its-moving/

---

<Questions>

Q1. How would you define trust? 

Q2. Do you trust your boy friend or girl friend? or How about your spouse? 

Q3. Do you trust your neighbors? How about your family members? 

Q4. Do you trust politicians? Can you find any politicians you trust? Why do you trust them?

Q5. Are you individualistic or collectivistic? 

Q6. Do you think you are a reliable person? 

Q7. Who is the worst person who you never trust? Why you do not trust him?

Q8. What is the most important value to live as a one good citizen in your region?