Charity, Selfishness & Human Nature

[ForEverAfter]

You know those ads that say, "If you give $5 a day, you can save a child's life."
Or, "If you donate $10 we can restore a child's sight."

How many of us make these donations?
I know I don't, and I used to feel bad about it.
But, in the end, life is hard. And I've struggled with depression and drug addiction.
It might sound greedy to some people, but I need everything I have.

A lot of people I know are plagued with guilt about the fact they don't donate.
I've experienced it to some extent (like I said earlier) but - often - it's quite serious.
People don't like talking about it, much. But, if you push them, there is a lot of pain below the surface.
A lot of people, it seems, spend their entire lives feeling guilty about what they have.
Yet, it rarely amounts to anything... So, why should we feel the pain?

Are we just pretending to care?
I mean: if I'm not willing to donate $5 a day - and I'm not - doesn't that mean I don't care very much?
Practically, I care less about a starving child's life than any number of "luxuries". Don't I?
Is that just human nature? Is there anything wrong with it?

...

Wealthy people aren't very popular, but - statistically speaking - they make the majority of donations.
We tend to stereo-type the ultra-rich as disgustingly greedy fat cats, that don't care about the world.
But, these are the people donating their money (and sustaining our economy with their hard work).

It seems to me that people don't donate - as a general rule - unless it has NO impact on their lifestyle.
We don't really make sacrifices. (Like how I'm not willing to sacrifice my daily coffee/burger/whatever.)
If I ever get to a point where I can afford to fully finance my house and my family is (totally) comfortable, I'll donate.
Until then, I don't feel guilty about not "doing my bit" to save the world... What do you guys think?

Do you donate?
Have you done volunteer work?
If not, why not? (Be honest. I'm not judging.)
If you do donate/volunteer, do you think less of people who don't?

...

If you could save your child or save a hundred thousand starving children in another country, who would you save?
Isn't it human nature to be selfish?

 

[drug_mentor]

You know those ads that say, "If you give $5 a day, you can save a child's life."
Or, "If you donate $10 we can restore a child's sight."

How many of us make these donations?
I know I don't, and I used to feel bad about it.
But, in the end, life is hard. And I've struggled with depression and drug addiction.
It might sound greedy to some people, but I need everything I have.

A lot of people I know are plagued with guilt about the fact they don't donate.
I've experienced it to some extent (like I said earlier) but - often - it's quite serious.
People don't like talking about it, much. But, if you push them, there is a lot of pain below the surface.
A lot of people, it seems, spend their entire lives feeling guilty about what they have.
Yet, it rarely amounts to anything... So, why should we feel the pain?

Are we just pretending to care?
I mean: if I'm not willing to donate $5 a day - and I'm not - doesn't that mean I don't care very much?
Practically, I care less about a starving child's life than any number of "luxuries". Don't I?
Is that just human nature? Is there anything wrong with it?

I think a lot of people do pretend to care, without ever really thinking deeply about these issues. I am guilty of that a lot of the time, I rationalise it to a certain extent because I am not in a great financial position. I try and do my part by increasing awareness and speaking out against a global economic system that is stacked in favour of a minority, but I know that I do less than I should. I can't say I feel overwhelmingly guilty about it, but logically and morally speaking, I know I am not living to the standards which I expect of some others, particularly the wealthy.

I think people who give to charity need to be careful about which charities they give to. Peter Singer is a utilitarian ethicist whose most recent book is called 'The Most Good You Can Do', in this book he outlines a moral philosophy which he has helped develop called effective altruism. A big theme of the book is that people who donate must vigorously investigate any charity they intend to give to, both in terms of what percentage of funds makes it to the cause (as opposed to paying workers, etc.) and also how much utility is accomplished for a given sum of money. For example, he advocates giving to the Fred Hollows foundation over the Guide Dog Association, because a great deal of peoples sight can be restored for the same amount of money that it takes to train a single guide dog.

I think that the effective altruism movement makes a lot of sense for those in a position of wanting to give to charity. Personally, if I give to a charity now, I do some investigating beforehand. It is easy to give to a charity and think you are doing good, but in many cases a small percentage of your donation is making it to people that live in first world countries where the money doesn't go far at all. I am not a utilitarian, but I think when it comes to charity the principles of utilitarianism make perfect sense.

I think that we all have to remember that a western conception of what amounts to "nothing" is a great deal more than the reality that a significant percentage of the human population is living with. I think it is a bit of a cop out to use our own misfortunes as a justification for doing nothing, because we really are much more fortunate than we seem capable of consciously recognising. I say this with the acknowledgment I am as guilty as anyone else.

With that said, I don't think it is as simple as saying we care more about luxuries than starving children. I don't think at the time we spend we are making the conscious comparison of what our money could accomplish. At the end of the day, humans are rationally self-interested beings. This may not excuse a lot of what we do, but it certainly explains most of it. Consequently, humans are quite adept at the art of cognitive disssonance, so long as it helps us feel better about ourselves.

Wealthy people aren't very popular, but - statistically speaking - they make the majority of donations.
We tend to stereo-type the ultra-rich as disgustingly greedy fat cats, that don't care about the world.
But, these are the people donating their money (and sustaining our economy with their hard work).

The cynic in me tends to think the only reason they do this is because charity is a tax write off for them. According to Thomas Pogge in his article 'Are we violating the rights of the worlds poor', in 2005 2 percent of global household income could have brought living standards up to an acceptable standard worldwide (I take this to mean food, shelter, primary education, basic healthcare etc.). The richest 5% of the world population had 46.36% of global household income in 2005. In other words, a minuscule share of the wealth owned by the richest 5% could ensure that everyone had a reasonable standard of living. Statistics like these make it impossible for me to view billionaires and trillionaires as altruistic.

It seems to me that people don't donate - as a general rule - unless it has NO impact on their lifestyle.
We don't really make sacrifices. (Like how I'm not willing to sacrifice my daily coffee/burger/whatever.)
If I ever get to a point where I can afford to fully finance my house and my family is (totally) comfortable, I'll donate.
Until then, I don't feel guilty about not "doing my bit" to save the world... What do you guys think?

Do you donate?
Have you done volunteer work?
If not, why not? (Be honest. I'm not judging.)
If you do donate/volunteer, do you think less of people who don't?

I donate when I can, which isn't very often. I am a student, I do have a drinking problem, and if I quit that I could donate more, but to be honest I like drinking. I have read that if everyone in developed countries donated $500 a year, and this money was spent well, this would be enough to eliminate extreme deprivation worldwide. When I have my degree and am working, I intend to donate several times this figure annually. I suppose this mentality is fairly in line with your hypothesis that we don't donate unless it has no impact on our lifestyle. The only part I would change about that hypothesis, is I would alter "no" to "little".

I don't believe those who are doing it tough financially have a moral responsibility to donate, but I think anyone with a good job has some level of responsibility. Whether we like to admit it or not, we are all complicit in the global status quo that leads to the exploitation of the worlds poor. Whether we are buying electronic goods with coltan in them which was sourced from the DRC, or clothes made in sweat shops in Bangladesh. We also don't speak out (very often) against immoral institutions like the WTO, which forces all member states to sign up to TRIPS, making essential medicines unaffordable to those living in developing nations.

 

[tantric]

back when i was studying epidemiology, i got to talking about malaria, how malaria kills 3000 kids every day. my friend said, "you know even if you saved those kids, they'd most like starve or die some other way - why are you trying to save them?" i thought a while and said, "i'm not saving them, i'm saving myself"

 

[ForEverAfter]

The cynic in me tends to think the only reason they do this is because charity is a tax write off for them.

Yet - if you were wealthy - would you only donate because of tax benefits?
Do people become heartless assholes when they reach a certain net worth?
(I'm not sure why everyone is convinced that wealthy people are less moral.)

I think people who give to charity need to be careful about which charities they give to. Peter Singer is a utilitarian ethicist whose most recent book is called 'The Most Good You Can Do', in this book he outlines a moral philosophy which he has helped develop called effective altruism. A big theme of the book is that people who donate must vigorously investigate any charity they intend to give to, both in terms of what percentage of funds makes it to the cause (as opposed to paying workers, etc.) and also how much utility is accomplished for a given sum of money. For example, he advocates giving to the Fred Hollows foundation over the Guide Dog Association, because a great deal of peoples sight can be restored for the same amount of money that it takes to train a single guide dog.

Interesting. I was talking about this to my girlfriend, earlier tonight.
I'm not aware of Peter Singer or the term effective altruism, but I came up with the same thought.
My example wasn't Fred Hollows and the Guide Dogs.

I asked my girlfriend, "If it costs $5 a day to save people in one country and $1 a day to save people in another country, and we have $100,000 to give to charity, shouldn't we save 100,000 people rather than 20,000?" And, reluctantly, she agreed... It's the same logic that you're presenting, and it's hard to fault.

Should charity start at the bottom? Should anyone donate to the Guide Dogs (or Fred Hollows), when people are dying? I don't mean to be insensitive to the blind (I worked in the disability sector for ten years), but isn't being alive more of a priority?

 

[Xorkoth]

Thought-provoking topic... I'm going to have to digest it, but my initial thoughts are that I think you're right that most people don't donate unless it makes no impact on their lifestyle. I will almost always donate $1-2 when I'm at the checkout and they ask me if I want to donate a bit to help [insert cause that's helping people]. I'll always give my leftovers to people who are hungry. I buy my friend who is broke as a joke food pretty often and I let him use my drugs. But, I don't donate $5 per day for starving children in Africa, or hell, even $1 per day. The commercials do make me feel bad, though I don't think about it unless they're on (and I don't watch TV anymore so I'm never exposed anymore). It's a tricky question. Would it make a big difference in the world if everyone from industrialized societies who is at all able to donated $1 per day and that was divided among the various most tragic issues facing humanity? Probably yes, that would be a shitload of money. Would it actually go to that use? I don't know. I certainly could afford $1/day indefinitely, I spend more than that on pet insurance for my cats.

I greatly admire people who dedicate their lives and everything they have to helping save starving children, or bring education to the uneducated, or any other type of charitable work. Why don't I do it? I guess I want to live my life for me and the people I love, and I do what I can within that framework to help the wider population. I try to focus on being a great influence on peoples' lives and happiness whom I love and am close to, or who I am thrown together with and feel I am supposed to help them, in the hope that my influence can bring someone else into the frame of mind where they want to do the same. Maybe that can start a chain reaction. I either feel like that's a naive dream, or that it's possible, depending on where I'm currently at.

I've done charity work on a variety of occasions, but not in a while. Unless you count volunteering my time to moderate on Bluelight and answer a plethora of PMs from people seeking help for various things. I count it as doing something good for others but I don't think it's what you're talking about.

 

[-=SS=-]

Even if I were a billionaire I would never donate to charity. It is nothing more than a guilt alleviating exercise and utterly futile at resolving the problems these charities purport to solve. That I don't see why I should finance someone's own lifestyle with half of my donation.. charities take man power, offices, accountants bla bla bla.. but this is secondary to my main point. Charities are essentially a form of protest group that tries to tackle symptoms than the root cause of the issue they purport to solve; they drain people of financial and emotional power which could be focused to the cause of the problem instead.. but this would upset certain interests, industry leaders, and assorted sociopaths. Basically charities are there as a form of society wide tension relief. If they weren't people might start asking what they, or the government, could do to actually solve these issues. Like homelessness.. something all governments love to just ignore and sweep under the rug.. or in the case of my nation (England) install spikes and benches with added hand rails to prevent sleeping, keeping them out of sight.

I see it much like foreign aid, or a rich father lavishing money on his progeny rather than investing time and energy with them. You can't just throw money at a situation or people and expect things to change. Sure, the money does make a difference in both instances, but it never solves the root problems.

And one of the main root problems is us.. our way of life.. our culture and societal model itself. That's why I could never donate. It's hypocritical and incongruous to drop money on a cause and continue to live a life out of balance that ultimately feeds the problems in the first place.

No.. if I were a billionaire I would direct my wealth to individuals with brilliant minds and hearts who I could see were capable of getting together to tackle the root problems directly. Naturally I think this would drastically shorten my life span..

 

[Anamo7tram]

People care and are willing to lower their lifestyle for other people. The problem lies in the fact that there is no emotional reward from donating, when you donate to a person around you directly, he shows you how much you helped him and that validates your emotional need to contribute to society. But when your donating to some African starving child, your pretty much disconnected from the process emotionally.

I personally think donating in a direct way is a very satsyfing feeling, almost like an opioid rush, but I like to help society in a more productive way, meaning, I would much rather train an African child to become a poet than save 10 Starving children.

 

[Foreigner]

I don't give to charities, mainly because the world's problems are not due to lack of money. Charities are also poor resource managers, having little impact on the areas they claim to be working on. A lot of charities have a colonial mentality too. They view a lot of places as poor when the people there don't see themselves that way. Sometimes the "agency" we bring to these places is really just another way of asserting our values. It makes much more sense to train local people, who, you know, grew up in the culture?... and then they can take leadership roles and decide what their society needs.

It's better to donate human resources, like labor and man power, than to donate money. Showing up with your own two hands and feet provides way more agency than tossing money at something. On the other hand, the slew of volunteer-tourism organizations is problematic as well... a lot of privileged (mostly white) people pay to go to foreign lands where they contribute minimally and then get to claim they helped a starving nation, all while taking snapshots of themselves surrounded by poor children.

I prefer to develop myself first and foremost because it's the culmination of individuals doing their inner work that brings consciousness to the world. I then prefer to develop my local community because it's something I have real, meaningful access to. I used to do global concerns now I don't so much anymore. The world is a fuck show because of governments and monolithic organizations like the WHO, WTO and IMF. Me spending the greenhouse gas to fly to Africa to install an irrigation system when someone local could've done that, makes no sense.

I say all this as someone who has done aid work abroad including international development, and I've seen how flawed the aid systems are from the ground up. They are so filled with bureaucracy that it's hard to get anything done.

 

[Nom de Plume]

I never give alms or make donations to charities as a knee-jerk reaction to some lengthy, maudlin TV advertisement with some disinterested actor reading from a script of emotional appeals while showing close ups of teary-eyed, disheveled children who, for all I know, are all in on the ruse.

Moreover, I find myself wondering why the onus falls upon me—a person indigent enough to not know where my next warm meal will come from, too—rather than the rich asshat celebrity narrator and his rich asshat celebrity ilk, who have the money to spare and enough of it to feed more starving children a day than I could in a lifetime.

Also, money is not going to ameliorate abject poverty in the case of these millions of unfortunate children. There isn't enough money, food, or resources on Earth to feed, clothe, house, and save even 1/5th of the world's billions of impoverished people. We've already did and are still doing irreparable destruction to the planet by raping its environment and exhausting its limited resources just to develop and sustain the handful of already developed nations.

Lastly, money and capitalism are the problems, and not the solutions to the worldwide suffering they've created. Before capitalism, money, and the need for wage jobs, people had a means to survive and stay fed. Consider the natives and autochthonous tribes that populate Panama's Darién area near the Colombian border. Prior to the banning of hunting and the recent migration to cities and towns, these people had reliable sustenance and adequate subsistence; they were self-sufficient. Now, they are poorer than before, destitute, and must spend more time selling themselves and their food (which they could keep for themselves, ootherwise) than providingfor tthemselves, all just to scrape together a few bucks of grocery money or enough cash to keep the stove running and the water on.

 

[drug_mentor]

Also, money is not going to ameliorate abject poverty in the case of these millions of unfortunate children. There isn't enough money, food, or resources on Earth to feed, clothe, house, and save even 1/5th of the world's billions of impoverished people. We've already did and are still doing irreparable destruction to the planet by raping its environment and exhausting its limited resources just to develop and sustain the handful of already developed nations.

According to numerous sources I have read, including one which I cited in my previous post, this is simply not true. 5% of the population owns half of the wealth. Contrast this with the poorest quarter of the population, which has less than a 1% share of Global household income. The next lowest quarter has just over 2%. The bottom half is getting a 3% share while the top 1/20 are getting 46%. These statistics were for 2005, and you can find them in the article I mentioned. The statistics come from the World Bank.

Even if what you were claiming is true (I am 99% sure it is false), we could still be doing a lot better than we are now.

 

[Nom de Plume]

According to numerous sources I have read, including one which I cited in my previous post, this is simply not true. 5% of the population owns half of the wealth, about half of that is concentrated to the top 1%. Even if what you were claiming is true (I am 99% sure it is false), we could still be doing a lot better than we are now.

You missed the point altogether. Allow me to point out what wasn't salient enough for you to see.

Let's ignore the top 5%, and focus briefly on the top 0.00003%—the some 2,000 billionaires inhabiting the planet, with a combined wealth approximately $7.5 trillion USD.

If every billionaire were to equally distribute their money amongst all the world's ~7.5 billion people, every man, woman, and child would have about $1,000 USD. A less-than-remarkable amount, for sure.

The reason I choose to ignore the top 5% of net income is because it consists of almost entirely millionaires (excepting the 0.000003% billionaires), and millionaires are vital to the functionality of global capitalism (an economic system I find repugnant and substandard, but that's beside the point) and will always be apart of it, no matter how significantly you modify or adjust the economic system without changing it.

If we disperse the wealth of the entire top 5% equally amongst 100% of the population, we end up with a global population of nothing but thousand-aires with 5-figure net worth.

What global economic good is to come from converting the world from a majority poor population to an entirely poor population? Money is not the solution; it is the problem itself. Throwing money at an issue doesn't do anything but waste the money and ignore the issue.

Okay. So if dispersing the wealth of the top 5% is an abortive endeavor, what if instead we somehow allowed everyone to possess the same wealth as that of the top 5%?

The result would be even more disastrous.

If we suppose everyone was wealthy—or at least middle class—then I predict a few outcomes, but namely most people would very quickly come to the disquieting discovery that every resource on which to expend their comfortable income has suddenly vanished due to widespread depletion and unchecked consumption of finite resources. There isn't enough metal contained in the Earth for everybody to have a car, or enough materials for everybody to own a 3-4 bedroom home, or enough arable land and potable fresh water to satisfythe hunger and quench the thirst of our entire species' population.

With 7.5 billion humans, a majority must go without for a minority to have.

You even concede the fact that 5% of the population holds about 50% of the wealth. Yet even with such few wealthy people and so many non-wealthy people, the planet can still barely manage to sustain our species inordinate consumerism and profound productivism.

Besides, the $7.5 billion owned by the richest 2,000 people on Earth can still purchase the same amount of global degradation in the hands of one as it can in the hands of all.

Increasing the wealth would be ineffective if it wasn't impossible. Dispersing the wealth would simultaneously increase poverty and decrease the livability of our environment at a rate similar to our current rate of declination, but not as precipitously as would the wealthier world scenario.

So if not income equality by way of dispersion nor via income accretion, then what is your next quixotic capitalist solution?

 

[drug_mentor]

What percentage of the world do you think is impoverished?

You said we can't even help one fifth of them. I have read that about half the worlds population lives in severe poverty. To suggest we don't have the resources to lift 10% of the world population out of poverty doesn't really add up, when you bear in mind that a mere 5% own half the worlds wealth.

If we took a quarter of the richest 5%'s wealth (11.5% of global income) and gave this to the poorest half of the world, we would be improving their share from 3% to almost 15%, an almost 5 fold improvement in economic terms for half of the people on this planet. This likely would not solve all problems, but I think your claim that we couldn't help a fifth of people in poverty is way off. Even if it wasn't possible to help a fifth of them, that isn't an excuse not to help a tenth, or whatever we can.

I have different views on the necessity of extreme wealth concentration at the top for a workable economic system. Even if someone bought in to that, with the numbers I am talking, you can still leave those elites with 75% of their current wealth, more than enough to keep funding businesses and keep the economy steaming along. I am clearly not an economist, but I can't see how my maths is off here. I don't think millionaires are investing more than 3/4 of their private wealth into the economy.

I should have been a little clearer, I was not talking about redistributing wealth to everyone. I was mainly talking about giving it to people in the developing world, who severely lack essential things which can be mostly be supplied quite cheaply.

Your point about environmental degradation would be more relevant if I was talking about bringing living standards up to that of a first world country. I am not talking about making sure every city on earth is full of iPhones, flat screen tv's and gas guzzling cars. I am talking about ensuring everyone has a right to shelter, sustenance, basic healthcare and at least a primary level education. I don't see how these things necessarily have to impact the environment, especially when I have been led to believe that all this is achievable through nothing more than a restructuring of current resources.

I will have to dig it up, but I recall reading an article by David Beetham which stated a relatively small % (under 5% iirc, I don't recall the exact figure) of GDP from OECD countries was enough to end extreme deprivation world wide, if it was spent appropriately.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

"Do you donate?"

I'll give cash to homeless people and put some of my change in those donation jars, it should be noted I'm operating on an income of <$3,000/year.

"Have you done volunteer work?"

I volunteered to help provide home delivered meals to elderly persons for a while.

"If you do donate/volunteer, do you think less of people who don't?"

No.

"If you could save your child or save a hundred thousand starving children in another country, who would you save?"

My own, as it is by both natural and civil law my responsibility to provide for its care, and in some conceivable scenarios I would be guilty of murder for allowing my child to die needlessly. Also, this hypothetical strikes me as a bit too vague.

"Isn't it human nature to be selfish?"

Yes, just as it is human nature to be compassionate and giving. In-group/out-group thinking is also a built in part of our minds, to grade people's selfless impulses by the metric that they should feel for people they've never met as just much as those that they live with throughout lives, is to set up an unreasonably harsh standard.

"If it costs $5 a day to save people in one country and $1 a day to save people in another country, and we have $100,000 to give to charity, shouldn't we save 100,000 people rather than 20,000?"

Instead of considering this as one act in aggregate, we might consider it as a number of discrete acts. So the question becomes, "Is an individual that is cheaper to save more deserving of being saved?" To which I would answer no, and let the individual donor decide whom to help arbitrarily, perhaps they are more fond of the expensive denizens of country A and find helping them to be more personally meaningful.

To step back from utilitarianism, let's look at how some non-consequentialist theories would approach charity. A virtue ethicist would see the morality of the act of charity in its generosity or its ren, not its consequences (i.e. that it does the greatest good for the greatest number), so donating to either country A or Country B would be praiseworthy, though not necessarily equally praiseworthy.

Kantian duty ethics would go further still, seeing only the Good Will (performing it because it is your duty to/the right thing to do) behind the act as morally praiseworthy, regardless of the consequences. As for charitable giving in general, the related Categorical Imperative^[1] would be that we ought to be charitable, since we cannot rationally will the establishment of "Never give charitably" as a moral law. Giving to either country A or Country B would be equally praise worthy if they were both performed out of duty, if you donated to country A and saved 20,000 people out of a good will (as opposed to a good inclination or an ulterior motive) and I donated to country B and saved 100,000 people for the tax deduction, you would have behaved morally, and I non-morally. Now, that is not to say you can't consider how well the money is being used, but determining the cost-effectiveness of your donation would be a separate act, a hypothetical imperative^[2] to spend your money in the most cost-effective manner, with no inherent ethical significance.

1. "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
2. "...the practical necessity of a possible action as means to something else that is willed (or at least which one might possibly will)."

I recall reading an article by David Beetham which stated a relatively small % (under 5% iirc, I don't recall the exact figure) of GDP from OECD countries was enough to end extreme deprivation world wide, if it was spent appropriately.

Considering the population growth rates of OECD vs developing countries, this program would not long remain financially viable. (Might not providing universal access to contraceptives be one of our primary goals in the effort to end extreme deprivation? It's cost-effective to boot.) Additionally, many developing nations would not willingly submit to this aid plan, as the people dependent upon it would in effect be the hostages of the donor countries, who would invariably use these programs as leverage to advance their own interests, such as the exploitation of these developing nations' mineral resources and labor. While direct aid to the needy is important, when considering posterity, investment in infrastructure, sustainable farming, economic development and the like is what will really solve things.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

"But, these are the people donating their money (and sustaining our economy with their hard work)."

Hold on? Are you a Libertarian?
I assume you're not because I think you said you didn't agree that christian bakers should be allowed to refuse gay wedding services... or maybe you didn't, I might have been argueing with someone else...
It's just rare to see a liberal/progressive that doesn't hate the rich.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I don't believe in the segregation between left and right.
I am neither liberal, nor conservative.
And, I never said anything about bakers.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

I don't believe in the segregation between left and right.
I am neither liberal, nor conservative.
And, I never said anything about bakers.

Oh, so out of curiousity, how do you feel about that issue, not to get off topic, I won't argue with you.

Personally, I don't indentify as anything either. I'm libertarian 90% on most social issues, but I won't discuss economics until I read some books on Clinton, Regan, Milton Friedman, some liberal economics, some conservative economics, maybe the Heritage Foundation, or maybe some liberal university, and fact check as I go on...
I don't think one is fit to discuss economics until they've been properly educated... I guess that's why I can't complain too much about the Electorial College.

 

[drug_mentor]

Considering the population growth rates of OECD vs developing countries, this program would not long remain financially viable. (Might not providing universal access to contraceptives be one of our primary goals in the effort to end extreme deprivation? It's cost-effective to boot.) Additionally, many developing nations would not willingly submit to this aid plan, as the people dependent upon it would in effect be the hostages of the donor countries, who would invariably use these programs as leverage to advance their own interests, such as the exploitation of these developing nations' mineral resources and labor. While direct aid to the needy is important, when considering posterity, investment in infrastructure, sustainable farming, economic development and the like is what will really solve things.

The idea wouldn't just be that OECD countries permanently prop up developing countries with aid though, the aim would be for the money to allow them to develop to the point that they became largely self-sufficient. A huge part of this would mean letting the developing countries use their resources for their own economic gain, and implementing labour standards to ensure workers got the fairest wage possible. The idea is ending the exploitation of the developing world, not letting it continue whilst allocating a portion of the profits to providing them with food and shelter.

I realise that what I am talking about is utopian, but only because people and governments are selfish. I never claimed it wasn't utopian, I am just saying that I have read several articles which led me to believe that this is something which is achievable through a restructuring of current resources and a change in attitude.

I don't wish to pursue this particular conversation much further because I feel it isn't directly on topic.

From my (limited) understanding of Kant, I don't think that you have misapplied his deontological ethics in this case.

While it can be interesting to explore how non consequentialist ethical viewpoints would approach charity, I feel utilitarianism is the most sensible way of thinking to adopt when giving to charity. I say this as someone who is not a utilitarian by the way. My reasons for feeling this way are that the whole idea behind giving to charity is presumably to do good (even if selfish motives of making themselves feel good are driving most donations, it follows that the feeling of having done the maximum good would induce a stronger sense of wellbeing than a feeling of having performed a lesser good). Aside from that, we don't tend to have any obligations or duties towards the charities we donate to. With an absence of duty and a desire to achieve a good outcome, the utilitarian mantra of maximising utility is the logical approach to charity, in my opinion.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

I realise that what I am talking about is utopian, but only because people and governments are selfish.

I see, as a pragmatic fellow, I look at it not as selfishness, but an inevitable result of the state existing to protect the lives and liberties of its subjects, and promote their general welfare. So it is quite proper that the comparative poverty that exists within a given state is a greater concern to it than the absolute poverty of foreigners. Likewise for the people united into a civil society, their first duty is towards each other. I am in agreement that both states and individual persons also have an obligation to humanity as a whole, and that the precise whys and hows are outside the scope of this discussion.

My reasons for feeling this way are that the whole idea behind giving to charity is presumably to do good (even if selfish motives of making themselves feel good are driving most donations, it follows that the feeling of having done the maximum good would induce a stronger sense of wellbeing than a feeling of having performed a lesser good). Aside from that, we don't tend to have any obligations or duties towards the charities we donate to. With an absence of duty and a desire to achieve a good outcome, the utilitarian mantra of maximising utility is the logical approach to charity, in my opinion.

After one has decided which charitable cause they want to donate to, it would be prudent to choose the charity which will utilize that money most effectively. If someone does not devote the time to doing this (which isn't really practical for the average person, unless some database or article on the subject is easily accessible by search engine), I do not think that it has any impact on the moral value of the act. Goodness is not quantifiable, nor is the degree of its presence in a given act determined by how skillfully that act is performed.

 

[RichardMooner]

Donating to a child in need isn't going to solve their problem, improve some aspects of their quality of life for sure, but the gist of it is, the ultra rich......the people who dominate the market, are the very reason that those people are in need in the first place. Without the suffering, the privileged cannot exist. The bourgeois need laborers to maintain their affluence and power.

Until you fix the system, you'll never fix their problems. The rich may donate millions, but in the end, systemically, they're the very reason the underprivileged need donations.

I wouldn't be too quick to give them a pass.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Without the suffering, the privileged cannot exist... Until you fix the system, you'll never fix their problems.

So, do we - as the privileged - want the suffering to stop; are we willing to give up our lifestyle and moderate global economies so that nobody is privileged and nobody suffers?

NSFW:

Oh, so out of curiousity, how do you feel about that issue, not to get off topic

As far as I'm concerned, the baker should be allowed to refuse to cater a gay wedding.
But, if a gay guy walked into a bakery, they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to sell him bread.

(O/T)