A long tired rant from a horny hippie in an existential crisis

i should say that i've still been caught in the tanha (pardon the hippie jargon) of being dissatisfied with buddhism because, deep down, my little monkey brain doesn't think it fits my supposedly hard-rockin' self-image. it's not that i even like metal that much. would i give it all up to be a pacifist hippie talking in quiet tones and smiling all the time while reading Thich Nhat Hanh? or would i go down the path of anger, selfishness and opposition to my core values of democracy, populism and egalitarianism for the chance to listen to the cool music i like and wear t-shirts too black for the summertime? are music and style the only things behind my tanha type aversion to the path of alieviating aversions, or does it come down more to the fact that KP Hong, my trusted advisor and college minister, kind of creeped me out with his quietly smiling, politically correct beautific-ness (despite talking with me in that beautific tone through many questions)?

Should i commit to total Amish pacifism? Should i recommit when i move to vegetarian eating, at the expense of what little muscle my working out to heavy metal has brought me (because after all, as a pro-lifer who doesn't want children, i can never have sex, so who needs muscles)? Should i listen to music like that monk playing those awful acoustic folk songs like "Samadhi Shoes" i just heard -- which won't stir the inner demons of anger or lust -- or should i consider anger and lust to be key ingredients in "rock 'n' roll 4 ever"?

Furthermore, should i say that abortion before quickening or brainwaves is okay (i can never support partial-birth), or is that just a cop-out 'cause i wanna get laid? is looking at porn okay, since the porn actresses might get pregnant and have abortions -- not to mention the whole degrading-women issue? Also, if we are ethically obligated to do positive good for others, exactly how much are we talking about (i discuss this in my Peter Singer post in more detail)? And on the "thou shalt not" side of ethics, what are we not supposed to do to others? Treat them unlike they want to be treated, i guess -- that's fine and steady, as far as it's defined. ("An it harm none, do what ye will" is the only reasonable thing the sociological/religious catastrophe of Wicca ever had). But of course we have to stop third parties from harming the second parties or reducing their freedoms -- A must stop C from hurting B, even if that means hurting B. Fine. But when do we know what to allow?

i feel guilty about most things i do, including staring at a computer screen till 12:30 a.m. when i should have meditated and gone to bed early instead of ruining my eyesight. What i'm trying to say is, i'm too sexy for this song and i'm logging off.

Peter Singer and our ethical obligations

i found a link to a site with controversial ethicist Peter Singer's essay on famine and the moral duty of giving to those who are starving.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

Singer's sentiment both jives with what i feel and also disturbs me. What i want to know is, how much is enough when it comes to giving to those who need it? Singer says a minimum of 10%, but how can we tell? one line of reasoning would be that you would give away to the starving and dying enough so that you would not have anything but what you need to survive. but how much is this? as an altruist, would one give away so much of one's income that one is left with only just as many calories of food, say, as would be necessary to keep one alive and functioning in the pursuit of income to give to the starving? or would make do with slightly more, enough food for oneself to be healthy and happy, and if so, how does one measure that?
on a less dire level, does Singer's ethic -- which i find hard to refute -- mean that we each have the ethical responsibility of giving away/doing without anything that is not strictly necessary for one's survival? i'd have to get rid of all my books, CDs, television, most of my clothes, phone, probably my car, and a large amount of the food in my house. i wouldn't be allowed to set any part of my income toward frivolous entertainment. i'm not saying that this is not what i should do; maybe it is, and in a way, i can't see how it couldn't be, except that the implications seem somehow illogical. are we all mean to live purely with the smallest possible amount of necessary things? and if we are altruists, wouldn't the duty of putting others before oneself mean that one should do more even than that, let oneself get sick or even die in order for others to live -- and would those others be allowed to live from what one gives only at the extreme subsidence level, or would each of those others also be ethically required to die for all of his or her fellows?
So we come to a conundrum or dilemma. it seems to me that living without altruism makes life meaningless, and only an altruisitic form of ethics can be truly ethical and meaningful. on the other hand, altruism taken to its logical conclusion would mean we all die, which is absolutely absurd. Again i ask: how much is enough to give?
i hope that i will have the courage and the inner strength to give as much as i am ethically obligated to give; if i must live at a subsidence level or even die (for some reason), i REALLY would not enjoy that at all, but i hope that i would do my duty, although i probably would not, of course.
What do any of you out there in blog-land think? i would appreciate any comments.