# Ethical Choice Experiment



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Situation A:
A man finds out about a charity in India for providing street children with clean water and resources. A sudden feeling of guilt overrides his conscience, as he is solidly middle class and had never given money before to such things. He's had a stable job for over 10 years and never gave to charity! The brochure which he reads emphasizes the fact that "no one cares for these children" for the most part around the world, and this really bothers him. Well, this charity looks like it would do the trick, so he signs up to give a $500 lump-sum in charity. That's about half a week's paycheck for him. It's a big step that is borderline-difficult for his budget, but once he's done it, he feels like a great weight has lifted off his chest, and can be satisfied with his efforts and his goodwill. It definitely makes up for doing nothing in the past 10 years! Deep down inside though, although his friends applaud him, he still feels a bit awkward because he'll never understand true deprivation unless he gives all his money away. For one month he will watch his budget, and once he's in the clear, it's back to regular life! Obligation to humanity, check!

Situation B:
A man finds out about a charity in India for providing street children with clean water and resources. A sudden feeling of compassion overrides his conscience, as he feels a sudden connection with the children that he reads about in a brochure. The brochure emphasizes the fact that "no one cares for these children" for the most part around the world, and this really touches him in an uplifting way. He's had a stable job for over 10 years, and only gave a few bucks here and there for charity. Not very much, anyway. Feeling true compassion for these children, he writes a check for a $250 lump-sum to this charity. Once it's done, he doesn't feel particularly self-satisfied, but he is concerned whether or not his money will be used well and go directly to the children's needs. It was not a huge chunk of his paycheck, and he technically could have given more, but he felt that what he was giving was enough for the time being. He still feels the need to cut back just a little on his budget for the next few weeks, and maybe consider a cheaper phone than the one he originally wanted to get. After all, he feels pretty grateful that he can get any sort of phone at all!

My question:
Who would _you _want giving to charity, man A or man B? Why?

This is friendly discussion, but thoughtful. Please give thoughtful answers and be respectful of other's opinions. This also may not be my only question in weeks to come.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Please simplify, I don't feel any compelling reason for either!
They should really concern themselves with the poverty of their own locality (nation), India is a rich nation even if their spread of wealth is frightfully uneven. But then, You could say that about the US as well! My reasoning is that it is way to easy to focus on "problem's" in far away exotic places and feel content with donating pittance, but equalizing Your own back yard takes much more courage!

/ptr


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2014)

I'm not quite sure what the ethical question is here. Why can't you have both men giving to charity? Is this really an ethical or a moral question? Both are acting ethically - giving to the poor. When you get into motivations, I would think that is more a morality issue. I guess I am not quite sure what we are discussing here. At any rate, I don't think either is particularly helpful from the charities perspective. I would look for a manageable amount that I felt I could manage on a monthly basis, and include that in my budget for perpetual giving.

But like I said, there doesn't seem to be an ethical dilemma here. Are we focusing on the different amounts that they gave? Or are we focusing on how they felt about the giving?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Technically man A because he gave more - always good for charities. 

You've phrased it neatly to get the message across - one is guilty and then feels satisfied, the other has compassion and knows he didn't do much so it's fitting both 1 Corinthians 13:3 on giving and charity and Luke 18:9-14 about the self satisfied Pharisee. However, I'm going with Matthew 7:1 7 (Judge not, that ye be not judged.)


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

What strikes me about Situation A is that the man's friends applaud him for his charitable contribution. How did his friends even know about his contribution? Obviously, he told them. 

So, I suppose I would favor the B man. However, in both cases it's a one-time shot. As DrMike indicated, charity on a monthly basis is the more virtuous way to go. Taking it further, why not "give" on a daily basis? It's pretty easy to write a check and feel good about yourself, but "giving" through participation is a much greater sacrifice and also more satisfying. 

Adopt a child - adopt a pet - do something that's continuous. My wife and I adopted a 9 year old boy with learning disorders dozens of years ago. He's now 43 and about as productive as his challenges will allow. We are very proud of him and hope that our intervention and love helped him become the man that he is. 

I'm not big on the notion that ethics plays any part in this. We felt that we had the right stuff to help another soul on a continuous basis, so we did just that.

I also agree with ptr that there are plenty of needs that can be addressed in one's country of origin - no need to look to India.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Taggart said:


> Technically man A because he gave more - always good for charities.


Don't be so quick to go with the A man. In the Op, it's clear that man A will not be thinking about giving more charity at any time in the future. Man B will at least consider it.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

You include a lump of feces in your exposition, Huilun. The organization asking for the donation is not certified-low-overhead. I managed to avoid contributing to Mother Teresa's Sainthood Fund, but have been sucked in to the March of Dimes con.

That bolus obscures the soft, squishy moral judgements you are looking for.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

DrMike said:


> I'm not quite sure what the ethical question is here. Why can't you have both men giving to charity? Is this really an ethical or a moral question? Both are acting ethically - giving to the poor. When you get into motivations, I would think that is more a morality issue. I guess I am not quite sure what we are discussing here. At any rate, I don't think either is particularly helpful from the charities perspective. I would look for a manageable amount that I felt I could manage on a monthly basis, and include that in my budget for perpetual giving.
> 
> But like I said, there doesn't seem to be an ethical dilemma here. Are we focusing on the different amounts that they gave? Or are we focusing on how they felt about the giving?


Like my friend the doctor (it's been a while bro), I would say that I don't prefer one over the other. They gave within their means and whatever charities get is good, as long as the *charity itself* is ethical. But if we're going to talk ethics, the Christian ideal for charity involves trust. And I can't think of a more perfect example than this:

_41 And he sat down opposite the treasury and watched the people putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, *which make a penny*. 43 And he called his disciples to him and said to them, "*Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box*. 44 *For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on*."
_
What the widow did that was great didn't involve the amount she gave. It involved the decision she made. Seeing as A and B both gave within their means and both decided not to give any more, there isn't any difference. They didn't decide to commit to it and entrust a certain amount to it. Charity isn't about feeling better, it's about trusting and participating in something bigger than yourself.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Dogs in cages, kids with hairlips, etc., etc., etc.

My questions:

Tax deductible?

What percentage of donations goes to the charity's admin costs and fundraising?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

The question seem rather irrelevant to the whole big topic of charities and ethics. 

And... both man being middle class already implies that their second hand exploitation of children in 'exotic' countries is absolutely incomparable to whatever partial economical mending they offer and delude themselves with. If saving individuals is your thing, then go work directly with them. 

According to many of the popular doctrines (carried to their ultimate consequences), to be moral in any form of organized groupings of humans one has to either be a complete ignorant or be poor and physically exploited so one does not even have time to think or act outside the arbitrary regime. 

If you want ethics based on reality, ah! that's is really a topic worth some discussion. (But this is not the place for that)


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> The question seem rather irrelevant to the whole big topic of charities and ethics.
> 
> And... both man being middle class already implies that their second hand exploitation of children in 'exotic' countries is absolutely incomparable to whatever partial economical mending they offer and delude themselves with. If saving individuals is your thing, then go work directly with them.
> 
> ...


Hmmm... Are you really suggesting that A and B participate at all in exploiting poor people in India? I'm pretty sure it's primarily people in India that are doing that. Simply because we live well here doesn't make us responsible for every s*&%ty government in the world. So tell me, how exactly do we exploit them when in fact we are outsourcing jobs over there? You do realize a lot of American money goes into India.

A great example of this is the Philippines. In spite of a huge chunk of the country's economy coming directly from America, living conditions are still terrible over there because their government bleeds them dry. My stepmother literally had to bribe more than twenty different officials just to get each of them to help process her visa, and when she got over here she started supporting her family back home as a registered nurse. Considering that, I'd argue quite the opposite, friend.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't really care whether people feel guilty or not, so A is good enough for me. More money, less guilt, the world is a better place.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Neither of these hypothetical contributors has been truly charitable: They thought about the brochure, themselves, and what they could afford in very specific and detailed terms relating to their selves and their lives.

Neither saw a need and reflexively 'gave what they could,' then forgot about it. There is in each angle a good deal of self-interest, re: in contributing and that related to "how they would feel good about their self." The recipients (the needy children) were not nearly as much thought of or about, and were a medium where the contributor, tugged by an appeal to sentiment, could massage their self-esteem.

I was taught, outside of any religious context, that true charity was selfless and reflexive -- and done in a way so the charitable one kept their actions to themselves, their donations "anonymous."

This is akin to an ideal model of 'thoughtful,' i.e. you are walking down the street, alone, and espy a piece of broken bottle glass on the pavement, pick it up, and toss it into the next available trash can -- the motivation nothing more than "Some one (faceless, shapeless, anonymous), or an animal, could step on this and hurt themselves." It was done, really, without thought, without being witnessed, and the doer of the deed does not mention their having done it to anyone, ever.

Each of your hypothetical guys are vain, and have some personal gain which allows each a degree of smugness. Further conscious contemplation that one has done "something good" as proscribed in what the doer considers their holy writ adds a layer of 'spiritual vanity,' on top of the personal vanity.

Apart from the ideal, I think many an act of kindness or charity is partially motivated by the fact -- via experience -- we do feel good about it; In that regard, irony or dichotomy, acts of charity are partially, at least, selfish. LOL.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I don't much care about the mental gymnastics of either A or B--first-world problems, as they say. Whoever ends up giving more money over the long haul (to a reputable, low-overhead charity) has done the most good. How they feel about it afterwards can be their own concern.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Perhaps both of them would ultimately be doing India a bigger favour by simply buying stuff imported from India, in the process helping to create jobs in India and growing the country's economy.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

There are any number of motivations for giving to charity, with a wide spectrum of pure altruism to pure self-interest. Howard Hughes established a massive science-funding program which has funded untold troves of scientific knowledge, but he did it mainly out of spite for the federal government, not wanting them to get a penny of his fortune after he died.

But ultimately, most charitable giving has some positive impact. And for the givers, even if they don't give altruistically, there is still some good done to them, and the next time they might be that much more inclined to give - the first time is always the hardest - and that is all to the good.

As to which one is better, that all depends on whether you believe there is a higher power that can judge intent. From a purely empirical outlook, you can say that either both are good because they both gave to the poor, and that perhaps person A did more good because he gave a larger quantity. But then you get into more subjective measurements. Who gave more of a percentage of their income? That gets into the parable that Lukecash mentioned. From the perspective of the charity, the $500 is going to pay for more than the $250, but if the person who gave $250 only had a monthly income of $500, whereas the person who gave $500 earned $5000/month, the person who gave $250 sacrificed more, and gave more to others (I realize in the scenario these proportions are reversed).

It all comes down to the metric we are using to determine the morality. What is the obligation to humanity outside of a religious context? To someone on the other side of the planet? From a purely detached perspective, it would seem that the obligation to humanity is inversely proportional to your proximity to the person you are helping. In pure terms of simply perpetuating the species and effecting progress, then the money would be more beneficially given to, say, scientific research in a developed country that could increase the overall quality of life for humanity, as opposed to supporting a poor child in squalor in India. Wouldn't helping fund research for a new vaccine to prevent a debilitating illness be more useful to those poor children on the other side of the world than paying for a few meals for a statistically insignificant fraction of the entire human population?

If it is a higher standard we are applying then, a standard where motivations are important, and all life is viewed as having inherent value, then it gets tougher. Then we have to consider for whom they are giving? If man A is really doing it for the children, then why announce it to his friends for their approbation? Is he then truly sacrificing, or would he hope to use that goodwill as a safety net should his finances fail him in that month?

The question is who would I want giving to charity. My answer is both. I want everybody giving to charity. But is that really what we are asking? I can't look on their heart. I can't know their motivations, unless they tell me, and even then, am I getting the full story, or even the true story? And I think anybody would want both giving to charity. Isn't the question more who we think is giving to charity out of purer motives?


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Don't be so quick to go with the A man. In the Op, it's clear that man A will not be thinking about giving more charity at any time in the future. Man B will at least consider it.


I think this is logical thinking. Looks like the guy in sitaution B will end up giving more to charity in the long run.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Who would _you _want giving to charity, man A or man B? Why?


I would want Man A to give to the charity, simply because he gives more. Both men give what they give for their own reasons, so they're pursuing happiness in their own ways. Their motives don't matter to me or the charity. But Man A clearly is doing the greater good by his giving, and that's what counts to the recipients.

So actually, I don't see this as an ethical question. And I don't see speculation about their future generosity to be useful.

And yes, as Vaneyes says, Trust but Verify!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Where does the 'extra money' of man A and B more likely comes from? Directly or indirectly from the exploitation of cheap labour work and tax exemption in an other country by big companies. What do we do when those countries refuse? We have all sorts of ugly methods to force them. (and everything that gets subsidized also ultimately gets their money from this cycle). This is not new nor a fantasy, this is basic geography/word economy class.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Where does the 'extra money' of man A and B more likely comes from? Directly or indirectly from the exploitation of cheap labour work and tax exemption in an other country by big companies. What do we do when those countries refuse? We have all sorts of ugly methods to force them. (and everything that gets subsidized also ultimately gets their money from this cycle). This is not new nor a fantasy, this is basic geography/word economy class.


So they are responsible? I refer you back to my last post, monsieur.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Situation A:
> A man finds out about a charity in India for providing street children with clean water and resources.
> 
> etc


Either or both. I'm not sure I can really see the difference. If a charity only wants money from the appropriately motivated, they might find themselves running out of cash very quickly - that's assuming it can discerned what appropriate motivations are. As for what anyone else might think...who cares?? The only person who has to decide what they think about their charity giving is the person doing the giving.

I also don't recognise some aspects of the descriptions too convincing, but perhaps that's because some of the terminology might have different implications in different countries. For example, someone described as "solidly middle class" in the UK would be unlikely never to have given to charity.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2014)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Where does the 'extra money' of man A and B more likely comes from? Directly or indirectly from the exploitation of cheap labour work and tax exemption in an other country by big companies.


The money could have come from any number of different sources; why do you think it 'more likely' came from one specific place?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> The money could have come from any number of different sources; why do you think it 'more likely' came from one specific place?


I think it's possible we might know exactly his line of thinking because we've seen it's ilk a million times already. What we have here is the guilt by association fallacy. Because of this guilt by association, he is able to look past how much Americans drastically improve the situation there. Take away all of the money pouring into that country and look at the sorry mess if you don't believe me. No offense to anyone here because I am sure you folks are wonderful people too, but American charity efforts dwarf that of other countries in the world by a stupendous amount, and a great deal of it comes from guys like good ole Luke and Mike setting aside a part of their income. And guess what Luke and Mike aren't? They aren't CEO or COO of some company that outsources it's labor.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

The flaw in Wrahms thinking, as well, seems to be that the flow is unidirectional. Poorer countries benefit greatly from the wealth of the United States. How much money has been flooded to Africa from the U.S. to fight HIV? Provide drugs? The polio vaccine was developed in first world countries with a great deal of wealth, and yet it has been used to help eradicate polio worldwide. The same with the smallpox vaccine. Other vaccines have nearly eradicated illnesses - we are so tantalizingly close with measles. Higher technology also makes it to these poorer countries. When we consider India, think of what poverty there now is considered, compared to 100 years ago. Poorer countries receive aid as well. So it is flawed to think that there is no benefit to these poorer countries. They contributed nothing to things like vaccine development but still reaped all the benefits.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> I think it's possible we might know exactly his line of thinking because we've seen it's ilk a million times already. What we have here is the guilt by association fallacy. Because of this guilt by association, he is able to look past how much Americans drastically improve the situation there. Take away all of the money pouring into that country and look at the sorry mess if you don't believe me. No offense to anyone here because I am sure you folks are wonderful people too, but American charity efforts dwarf that of other countries in the world by a stupendous amount, and a great deal of it comes from guys like good ole Luke and Mike setting aside a part of their income. And guess what Luke and Mike aren't? They aren't CEO or COO of some company that outsources it's labor.


Ooh, I wish I were a CEO, though. Or maybe I would be better as a COO. I went the wrong direction - after 5 years of undergrad and 5 years of graduate studies, and 5 years of postdoctoral research, I am making less than my older brother who only spent 5 years to get his ****** in engineering. That's why I tell my kids to not go into science - be engineers like your uncle and both your grandfathers.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Taggart said:


> Technically man A because he gave more - always good for charities.


Yup!



MacLeod said:


> Either or both. I'm not sure I can really see the difference. If a charity only wants money from the appropriately motivated, they might find themselves running out of cash very quickly - that's assuming it can discerned what appropriate motivations are. As for what anyone else might think...who cares?? The only person who has to decide what they think about their charity giving is the person doing the giving.


BINGO!!!



PetrB said:


> Neither of these hypothetical contributors has been truly charitable: They thought about the brochure, themselves, and what they could afford in very specific and detailed terms relating to their selves and their lives.
> 
> Neither saw a need and reflexively 'gave what they could,' then forgot about it. There is in each angle a good deal of self-interest, re: in contributing and that related to "how they would feel good about their self." The recipients (the needy children) were not nearly as much thought of or about, and were a medium where the contributor, tugged by an appeal to sentiment, could massage their self-esteem.
> 
> ...


I believe whoever taught you that (what I bolded) was not a very clear thinker.

I'm not sure where this notion that in order to be "truly" charitable one must do it for altruistic or non-selfish reasons comes from, but I find the notion absurd.

To me, the ONLY question is: "Is this charity doing good?" Period, end of story. If the answer is yes, then who cares WHY someone is giving money?

If Al gives $1,000,000 to a Charity that opens hospitals and medical clinics in third world countries JUST because he wants to see his name on a plaque, in the papers, and wants the approval of his community, but Zed (who makes just as much money as Al) only gives $100,000 to the same charity, but does it anonymously and no one ever finds out he gave that money, who did more good?

A million dollars is going to help far more people than 100K will. Who cares why either of them donated? Fact is, Al helped more people than Zed did.

I also challenge anyone here to give to a charity (whether it be money, time, or material needed) and NOT feel good about yourself in doing so. There's something wrong with that? Of course not, it feels good to help others and it should.

Point is, it shouldn't make any difference of why someone gives to a charity. I really can't imagine God saying to Al, "Even though you helped far more people who desperately needed it than Zed did, you're heart wasn't pure enough, so I'm going to allow Zed in heaven, but you'll have to do a few eons in purgatory first." The idea is absurd to me.

If Bob helps an old lady across the street only because it's going to get him another merit badge in the cub scouts, but Rick helps an old lady across the street because "it's the right thing to do" they both did an equally good act with equal results. Rick may have a better heart, but it didn't get the old lady across the street any safer, and that was the important thing to do.

It's what you DO in this life that matters, not how you feel. I'm a behaviorist and I'm a firm believer that if you start acting a certain way, you will start "feeling" that way eventually. If you start doing things over and over (even if you don't feel like it at first), it will start to become habit, and it will eventually become who you are.

V


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

DrMike said:


> The flaw in Wrahms thinking, as well, seems to be that the flow is unidirectional. Poorer countries benefit greatly from the wealth of the United States. How much money has been flooded to Africa from the U.S. to fight HIV? Provide drugs? The polio vaccine was developed in first world countries with a great deal of wealth, and yet it has been used to help eradicate polio worldwide. The same with the smallpox vaccine. Other vaccines have nearly eradicated illnesses - we are so tantalizingly close with measles. Higher technology also makes it to these poorer countries. When we consider India, think of what poverty there now is considered, compared to 100 years ago. Poorer countries receive aid as well. So it is flawed to think that there is no benefit to these poorer countries. They contributed nothing to things like vaccine development but still reaped all the benefits.


A lot of the people in the developing world didn't ask the Americans to interfere with their choice of government though, or to provide weapons and loans to their corrupt leaders.

etc etc.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

Wood said:


> A lot of the people in the developing world didn't ask the Americans to interfere with their choice of government though, or to provide weapons and loans to their corrupt leaders.
> 
> etc etc.


Oh, now, let's not lay that solely at the feet of the U.S. government or Americans. It seems that centuries of European colonialism throughout South America, Africa, the Middle and the Far East had a huge impact in that area as well. Quite honestly, it is difficult to find ANY period in world history where one country/society was NOT interfering with the choices of another.

Yes, we get chastised when we give money and aid to corrupt leaders, and we get chastised when we don't give money and aid to corrupt leaders. In so many of these third world nations, quite honestly, if we waited to give money only when they didn't have corrupt leaders, they would never get a dime of U.S. aid. So you sometimes go with the lesser of the evils.

And in many countries, we have stopped giving any kind of input as to their choice of government, but it doesn't seem to have improved the governmental situation any. But by and large, third world and developing countries do receive quite a bit of aid, either directly through funding, or indirectly through health programs, including vaccinations. You can focus only on the negative intervention if you choose.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

Varick said:


> Yup!
> 
> BINGO!!!
> 
> ...


I heartily agree - all giving is good. And so the trick is to get as many people started down the road of giving, because then it creates a positive feedback loop. The more you give, the better your feel, and then the more you give. The issue of motivation gets into more religious aspects - for my religious beliefs, we hold that the willing participation is preferable, because compulsion in all things does not lead to progress. And the willing and cheerful giving also comes to represent how much one's mind and spirit have become attuned to the gospel of Jesus Christ. But even for those who haven't reached that point, there is still the encouragement to test it out for themselves and see whether it is a good thing. And so even if you don't yet have the right motivation, give, and the more you do, the more you will come around. The act of giving itself helps the needy. The proper motivation coupled with the giving helps not only the needy, but also the giver. And that is the better outcome.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Oh, now, let's not lay that solely at the feet of the U.S. government or Americans.


I didn't do that.



> Yes, we get chastised when we give money and aid to corrupt leaders, and we get chastised when we don't give money and aid to corrupt leaders. In so many of these third world nations, quite honestly, if we waited to give money only when they didn't have corrupt leaders, they would never get a dime of U.S. aid. So you sometimes go with the lesser of the evils.


I didn't mention aid.



> third world and developing countries do receive *quite a bit* of aid, either directly through funding, or indirectly through health programs, including vaccinations.


I didn't mention aid.



> You can focus only on the negative intervention if you choose.


I don't need your permission to do that.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

DrMike said:


> I heartily agree - all giving is good. And so the trick is to get as many people started down the road of giving, because then it creates a positive feedback loop. The more you give, the better your feel, and then the more you give. The issue of motivation gets into more religious aspects - for my religious beliefs, we hold that the willing participation is preferable, because compulsion in all things does not lead to progress. And the willing and cheerful giving also comes to represent how much one's mind and spirit have become attuned to the gospel of Jesus Christ. But even for those who haven't reached that point, there is still the encouragement to test it out for themselves and see whether it is a good thing. And so even if you don't yet have the right motivation, give, and the more you do, the more you will come around. The act of giving itself helps the needy. The proper motivation coupled with the giving helps not only the needy, but also the giver. And that is the better outcome.


In other words, giving is a selfish activity, because it makes you feel good. Poor people are needed for this activity, so let us ensure that there are some poor people around, then we can give them some money to show how close we are to our god.

Of course, poor folk are the lucky ones, they are suffering so they are even closer than us to god. We do not therefore need to actually care about alleviating their suffering for this very reason. Indeed, we can use the opportunity of giving to them to try to improve their morals, after all, they wouldn't be poor in the first place if they were hard working upright decent Christians.

On the other hand, we could put the poor first, and give them a right to a decent standard of living, regardless of the middle classes religious sensitivities.

This is the real ethical choice Huils. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

There will always be poor, for whatever reason. There have been any number of government programs, as well as actual systems of government, that have tried to make this not so. To my knowledge, they have all failed. Remember that great Lenin-Marx experiment? The progressive need to order society in such a way to eliminate all societal ills is utopian and, ultimately, unachievable. 

So that is why we all need to give. For whatever reason, which, I believe, is what I said. If your motivation is religious, great. If it is purely humanitarian, great. If it is a way to get more deductions on your taxes, great. Whatever gets you to that point. Simply because there is a benefit doesn't mean the act is a selfish one. There is a definite benefit to breathing - is breathing a selfish activity? Or eating? Or drinking? Yes, giving makes you feel good. So? Is that the cause, or the effect? That depends solely on the individual.

As to showing how close you are to God, well, in the Christian model of giving, it is supposed to be anonymous. You don't brag about your charity. You don't do it so others will praise your godliness. You do it out of a love for your fellow man, and because you are striving to follow the example of Jesus. You give in such a way that your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

DrMike said:


> There have been any number of government programs, as well as actual systems of government, that have tried to make this not so. To my knowledge, they have all failed.


Are things really so bad in your country that you can make a statement like that? After WW2 the UK created a welfare state which provided a right to housing, income, health and education. This occurred despite the collapse of the economy caused by the war. It was a considerable success (though far from perfect) but it certainly did not fail. Sadly, with the UK richer than it has ever been, it is now being gradually dismantled. To argue that the welfare state has failed is just wrong. The UK is not alone, indeed similar systems in western Europe were not failures either.



> As to showing how close you are to God, well, in the Christian model of giving, it is supposed to be anonymous. You don't brag about your charity. You don't do it so others will praise your godliness. You do it out of a love for your fellow man, and because you are striving to follow the example of Jesus. You give in such a way that your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing.


That is excellent and of course by its very nature one is not going to come across examples of it regularly.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

Wood said:


> A lot of the people in the developing world didn't ask the Americans to interfere with their choice of government though, or to provide weapons and loans to their corrupt leaders.
> 
> etc etc.


I get it - you didn't say aid. But what do your comments have to do with what I said? I was making the point that poorer countries do receive benefits from the U.S. I was talking about monetary and medical aid, and that they have, in fact, received benefits that they otherwise would not have been able to access, such as vaccines. You are the one who brought in the topic of interfering with their choices of government and providing weapons and loans to corrupt leaders. You started the unrelated tangent, I merely continued down that road.

My point was, and is, that pointing out only the negative interactions the U.S. has with poor countries is willfully ignoring that there are many positive things that the U.S. has done for poorer countries. You can decide for yourself in which direction the scales tip, but it is important to acknowledge that there are positives as well.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

Wood said:


> Are things really so bad in your country that you can make a statement like that? After WW2 the UK created a welfare state which provided a right to housing, income, health and education. This occurred despite the collapse of the economy caused by the war. It was a considerable success (though far from perfect) but it certainly did not fail. Sadly, with the UK richer than it has ever been, it is now being gradually dismantled. To argue that the welfare state has failed is just wrong. The UK is not alone, indeed similar systems in western Europe were not failures either.
> 
> That is excellent and of course by its very nature one is not going to come across examples of it regularly.


So you are saying that, at least for a time, there were no poor at all in the UK? Nobody in need of charity?

As to examples of perfect charity - Christians don't claim to be perfect. If we were, then there would be no need for a Christ in the first place, as his purpose is to save us from our imperfections and to redeem us from our sins and mistakes. Seems like if you are perfect, you have no need of a savior. Being a Christian is to be constantly striving to model your life on Christ's - but we all end up falling short in some way or another. Still - that doesn't mean one shouldn't try to reach that standard.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

DrMike said:


> I get it - you didn't say aid. But what do your comments have to do with what I said? I was making the point that poorer countries do receive benefits from the U.S. I was talking about monetary and medical aid, and that they have, in fact, received benefits that they otherwise would not have been able to access, such as vaccines. You are the one who brought in the topic of interfering with their choices of government and providing weapons and loans to corrupt leaders. You started the unrelated tangent, I merely continued down that road.
> 
> My point was, and is, that pointing out only the negative interactions the U.S. has with poor countries is willfully ignoring that there are many positive things that the U.S. has done for poorer countries. You can decide for yourself in which direction the scales tip, but it is important to acknowledge that there are positives as well.


Yes fair enough, I was merely trying to balance your pointing out the positive interactions with a mention of the negative ones.

Postwar US foreign policy is a festering sore for some of us on this side of the pond.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

The failure is that nobody has eradicated poverty. The measure of poverty shifts - poverty in 20th century UK is no doubt much better off than, say, poverty in 18th century UK, but there is still poverty. Modern man and his various forms of government have never eradicated poverty - notice the word eradicate. And so there will always be those who are in need of assistance. Sometimes it is only for a short period of time - the loss of a job, some family tragedy - and sometimes it is longer lasting. Even at the height of the British welfare state, I find it really hard to believe that all the charities closed up shop because they no longer had any purpose.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

Wood said:


> Yes fair enough, I was merely trying to balance your pointing out the positive interactions with a mention of the negative ones.
> 
> Postwar US foreign policy is a festering sore for some of us on this side of the pond.


It may be a festering sore for some, but for others it has been a godsend. We could talk about the merits of, say, the Marshall Plan, and how American dollars played a major role in helping to rebuild postwar Europe after a war of their own creation. Look wherever you wish around the world - it is hard to find a country that has not benefited in some very significant ways from American aid and foreign policy. That is not whitewashing our deficiencies. I am in no way saying that we have only had a positive impact. We haven't. But the fact of the matter is most modern advanced nations are involving themselves in other countries, and not always for the better. We could talk about how European nations propped up Saddam Hussein by helping him violate the sanctions on his selling oil. We could talk about how we are not the first foreign power that has set foot in Afghanistan. We could talk about current Russian foreign policy vis-a-vis its former Soviet satellites. We can talk about the ongoing problems of Africa and the Middle East that are due, in no small part, to the machinations of European powers - and we don't even have to go back 100 years for that matter.

I am pretty certain that no country really likes the foreign policy of any other country, because no two countries have the same foreign policy. We all have our skeletons in the closet. At least, though, we can say that, thus far, U.S. foreign policy has not set off any World Wars.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

DrMike said:


> So you are saying that, at least for a time, there were no poor at all in the UK? Nobody in need of charity?


No. I was just responding to your point that social systems have always failed. They haven't.



> As to examples of perfect charity - Christians don't claim to be perfect. If we were, then there would be no need for a Christ in the first place, as his purpose is to save us from our imperfections and to redeem us from our sins and mistakes. Seems like if you are perfect, you have no need of a savior. Being a Christian is to be constantly striving to model your life on Christ's - but we all end up falling short in some way or another. Still - that doesn't mean one shouldn't try to reach that standard.


That is fair enough, though I always find it strange when a super-rich person claims a strong faith. Perhaps they are using this argument as a 'get out' clause. I cannot see how selfish pleasure in this life counts for anything compared to the prospect of heavenly utopia for infinity so I'm sure that if I was a Christian my whole life would be devoted to His teachings.

In any case, I claim a morally superior view to that of the Christian, because I support the idea of a society where people have a decent standard of living as a right, and are not dependent upon the generosity or otherwise of others who may want something back for their charity.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

Wood said:


> No. I was just responding to your point that social systems have always failed. They haven't.
> 
> That is fair enough, though I always find it strange when a super-rich person claims a strong faith. Perhaps they are using this argument as a 'get out' clause. I cannot see how selfish pleasure in this life counts for anything compared to the prospect of heavenly utopia for infinity so I'm sure that if I was a Christian my whole life would be devoted to His teachings.
> 
> In any case, I claim a morally superior view to that of the Christian, because I support the idea of a society where people have a decent standard of living as a right, and are not dependent upon the generosity or otherwise of others who may want something back for their charity.


I love that last sentence, particularly, "and are not dependent upon the generosity or otherwise of others who may want something back for their charity."

Pray tell, does the money for these programs grow on trees, or are these people still dependent on others - except instead of the "others" giving willingly and cheerfully, they are forced to give, under threat of punishment by the government if they don't, in the form of taxation? And do you really believe that politicians act completely altruistically when they propose new welfare programs, and don't want "something back for their charity," like, say, the gratitude of the recipients at the ballot box?

Both of our systems absolutely rely on the giving of others - mine is a willing giving, yours is a forced one. So how is yours morally superior to mine?


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2014)

Ultimately, we both seek the same ends - and end to poverty and suffering, and the giving by those who are capable of doing so to help those in need. Where we differ is in how we achieve those ends. You believe that the ends justify the forced giving by people, under threat of violence (government power) if they do not concede. My system calls upon people to willingly give, for the good that it can do others and with the promise of blessings, either immediate or delayed. 

Incidentally, these "rights" you refer to are not really rights. Rights are inalienable. They aren't dependent on someone else providing you with something. They can be protected, but they aren't really given. Free speech, for example. Government can protect my right to free speech, but government did not give me free speech. I had it already. The right to housing, etc., can only be guaranteed if someone else is willing to provide it if you can't do so for yourself. That is not really a right - that is more an entitlement. Think of it this way - if you were the only person on earth, and you had no healthcare or house or job or means of sustaining yourself, who is violating your rights? In that same situation, your other rights are still there - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Nobody has to provide those to you. They exist regardless of whether you are the sole person on this earth, or merely one of billions. These new rights of which you speak require imposing upon someone else to provide them to you. Is it really a right when it requires someone else to give up something for you to have it?


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

DrMike said:


> The failure is that nobody has eradicated poverty. The measure of poverty shifts - poverty in 20th century UK is no doubt much better off than, say, poverty in 18th century UK, but there is still poverty. Modern man and his various forms of government have never eradicated poverty - notice the word eradicate. And so there will always be those who are in need of assistance. Sometimes it is only for a short period of time - the loss of a job, some family tragedy - and sometimes it is longer lasting. Even at the height of the British welfare state, I find it really hard to believe that all the charities closed up shop because they no longer had any purpose.


For sure there will always be relative poverty, and there will be those that slip through the welfare net, but the voluntary sector should only be for filling those gaps, and for providing more than the minimum that the state provides. Granted it is very important, but of much less significance than would otherwise be the case.

In the UK our government now stops benefits to claimants who are otherwise entitled to them, for disciplinary reasons. These people are then literally starving, as the suspension can go on for several months. As a result, food banks have been set up throughout the country, often run by church organisations. People are invited to stick in a tin of sardines or whatever, out of date food is collected from supermarkets, and a stash of food is accumulated.

The starving person is then required to see their doctor who has to certify that they are indeed starving, then go to the food bank and beg for some food, which they may or may not receive, depending on the bank's rules.

Not only is this situation thoroughly nauseous in a country as gluttonous as ours, but even worse, the churches love it because it gives them some relevance in being able to feed the hungry, and power, in deciding who will eat and who won't.

If they were really interested in alleviating poverty, they would be doing all in their power to make our rotten government undo these harmful policies.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

DrMike said:


> I love that last sentence, particularly, "and are not dependent upon the generosity or otherwise of others who may want something back for their charity."
> 
> Pray tell, does the money for these programs grow on trees, or are these people still dependent on others - except instead of the "others" giving willingly and cheerfully, they are forced to give, under threat of punishment by the government if they don't, in the form of taxation?


No, that is misinformation, ie lies, which our rulers persist with to the extent that you all now think it is common sense. Taxation doesn't pay for anything. It is money that is cancelled to prevent inflation.

The money doesn't grow on trees. It is created by the government.

What is happening is that there is a transfer of goods and services from those who own more to those who own less, facilitated by the government.



> And do you really believe that politicians act completely altruistically when they propose new welfare programs, and don't want "something back for their charity," like, say, the gratitude of the recipients at the ballot box?


The politicians are not paying for these programmes so your objection is not relevant.



> Both of our systems absolutely rely on the giving of others - mine is a willing giving, yours is a forced one. So how is yours morally superior to mine?


Mine isn't forced though.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Ultimately, we both seek the same ends - and end to poverty and suffering, and the giving by those who are capable of doing so to help those in need.


We have slightly different ends. Your wish to end poverty is subject to the motivations of the giver. I have no such qualification.



> Where we differ is in how we achieve those ends. You believe that the ends justify the forced giving by people, under threat of violence (government power) if they do not concede. My system calls upon people to willingly give, for the good that it can do others and with the promise of blessings, either immediate or delayed.


No, there is no violence involved. The government uses money it has created to buy schools, hospitals etc and pays to run them too. No-one is forced to donate money to these projects.



> Incidentally, these "rights" you refer to are not really rights. Rights are inalienable. They aren't dependent on someone else providing you with something. They can be protected, but they aren't really given. Free speech, for example. Government can protect my right to free speech, but government did not give me free speech. I had it already. The right to housing, etc., can only be guaranteed if someone else is willing to provide it if you can't do so for yourself. That is not really a right - that is more an entitlement. Think of it this way - if you were the only person on earth, and you had no healthcare or house or job or means of sustaining yourself, who is violating your rights? In that same situation, your other rights are still there - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Nobody has to provide those to you. They exist regardless of whether you are the sole person on this earth, or merely one of billions. These new rights of which you speak require imposing upon someone else to provide them to you. Is it really a right when it requires someone else to give up something for you to have it?


I'm not really sure what the point you are trying to make here is, other than a semantic discussion on the word 'right'. It doesn't diminish my position in any way that I can see.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Just so Wood isn't fighting the good fight all alone, I'll also briefly throw my hat in the ring in favor of a society which addresses poverty in a comprehensive, consistent, and systemic way, as opposed to relying on the occasional whims of the well-to-do. The charitable impulse, if it is genuine, should be directed toward the creation of such a just society.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2014)

Wood said:


> No, that is misinformation, ie lies, which our rulers persist with to the extent that you all now think it is common sense. Taxation doesn't pay for anything. It is money that is cancelled to prevent inflation.
> 
> The money doesn't grow on trees. It is created by the government.
> 
> ...


Yeah, we are so far apart here that it really is pointless to carry this any further, lest we get into religious or political discussions, which get threads shut down. We both see this issue quite differently, and we'll leave it at that.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Wood said:


> *In other words*, giving is a selfish activity, because it makes you feel good. Poor people are needed for this activity, so let us ensure that there are some poor people around, then we can give them some money to show how close we are to our god.
> 
> Of course, poor folk are the lucky ones, they are suffering so they are even closer than us to god. We do not therefore need to actually care about alleviating their suffering for this very reason. Indeed, we can use the opportunity of giving to them to try to improve their morals, after all, they wouldn't be poor in the first place if they were hard working upright decent Christians.
> 
> ...


I certainly wouldn't use "in other words" which connotates another way of saying 'such and such.' What you wrote above is a very twisted, dare I say perverted distortion, of what Dr mike said.

It would be as if Mike moved and told you that his friend Tom helped him move, and you respond by saying, "so, in other words Tom decided to do you a favor so you are indebted to him and he then has power to hold that favor over you for some future request he may have."

I mean I *guess* one could look at it that way, but like I said, it would be a VERY distorted, cynical, and negative way of looking at it.



Wood said:


> No. I was just responding to your point that social systems have always failed. They haven't.


Most have. You talked about Western European nations and how their social systems haven't failed, yet there were riots in your country when they proposed that college students may have to pay a part of their tuition. There were riots in France when at the mere suggestion of raising the retirement age by two (or three, I can't remember) whole years. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, and more all in a financial crises all because of their massive unsustainable social/ welfare system. So maybe they *all* haven't failed, but the record of success is deplorable. Unfortunately it takes decades upon decades for the failure to become complete, hence making it more difficult to clearly see it's failure.



Wood said:


> That is fair enough, though I always find it strange when a super-rich person claims a strong faith. Perhaps they are using this argument as a 'get out' clause. I cannot see how selfish pleasure in this life counts for anything compared to the prospect of heavenly utopia for infinity so I'm sure that if I was a Christian my whole life would be devoted to His teachings.
> 
> In any case, I claim a morally superior view to that of the Christian, because I support the idea of a society where people have a decent standard of living as a right, and are not dependent upon the generosity or otherwise of others who may want something back for their charity.


Christian charities (especially in the last 100 years), and Christians themselves have done more to help the poor than any other group or demographic in the world (and for clarification, I am not a Christian). Thank God many of them have been rich in order to give very large sums of money.



DrMike said:


> Ultimately, we both seek the same ends - and end to poverty and suffering, and the giving by those who are capable of doing so to help those in need. Where we differ is in how we achieve those ends. You believe that the ends justify the forced giving by people, under threat of violence (government power) if they do not concede. My system calls upon people to willingly give, for the good that it can do others and with the promise of blessings, either immediate or delayed.
> 
> Incidentally, these "rights" you refer to are not really rights. Rights are inalienable. They aren't dependent on someone else providing you with something. They can be protected, but they aren't really given. Free speech, for example. Government can protect my right to free speech, but government did not give me free speech. I had it already. The right to housing, etc., can only be guaranteed if someone else is willing to provide it if you can't do so for yourself. That is not really a right - that is more an entitlement. Think of it this way - if you were the only person on earth, and you had no healthcare or house or job or means of sustaining yourself, who is violating your rights? In that same situation, your other rights are still there - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Nobody has to provide those to you. They exist regardless of whether you are the sole person on this earth, or merely one of billions. These new rights of which you speak require imposing upon someone else to provide them to you. Is it really a right when it requires someone else to give up something for you to have it?


Brilliantly and eloquently said



Wood said:


> No, that is misinformation, ie lies, which our rulers persist with to the extent that you all now think it is common sense. Taxation doesn't pay for anything. It is money that is cancelled to prevent inflation.


It's not a lie at all. Taxation doesn't pay for anything? Where do you think the money gov't spends comes from? "Cancelled to prevent inflation?" I've read and listened to all kinds of left and right economists, and never have I heard taxation described that way.



Wood said:


> The money doesn't grow on trees. It is created by the government.


. Yes, The gov't prints money, but without "value" the money isn't worth the paper it's printed on. What gives it value? It certainly isn't gov't or anything they do. And by printing more and more, it devalues. Without the free exchange of goods and services (ie commerce), money can hold no value.



Wood said:


> What is happening is that there is a transfer of goods and services from those who own more to those who own less, facilitated by the government.


 yes, through taxation which is forced by law. If you don't pay taxes, you get punished.



Wood said:


> The politicians are not paying for these programmes so your objection is not relevant.


No, but they Make the laws that create the programs, so it is very relevant. These programs don't just appear on the charter one morning out of thin air.



Wood said:


> Mine isn't forced though.


so, if I don't pay taxes, and I eventually go to jail, well, yes... I guess that they aren't technically *forcing* me, because I always have that prerogative of getting fines and penalties and eventually going to jail if I don't pay those fines. but I guess if a sign is posted on a road that the speed limit is 60kph, I guess technically, no one is *forcing* me to go 60 because I COULD speed if I wanted, but there's that thing if getting caught and punished.

Sorry Wood, but I have family and friends whom I dearly love who believe what you do and have your ideology and have spoken at length on such issues with them, and I don't think any of them would argue that taxation *isn't* "forced."

V


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Varick said:


> You talked about Western European nations and how their social systems haven't failed, yet there were riots in your country when they proposed that college students may have to pay a part of their tuition. There were riots in France when at the mere suggestion of raising the retirement age by two (or three, I can't remember) whole years. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, and more all in a financial crises all because of their massive unsustainable social/ welfare system. So maybe they *all* haven't failed, but the record of success is deplorable. Unfortunately it takes decades upon decades for the failure to become complete, hence making it more difficult to clearly see it's failure.


Let's not forget the precipitating cause of much of this European turmoil: the U.S. financial meltdown, which had nothing to do with "unsustainable social/welfare systems."



Varick said:


> Christian charities (especially in the last 100 years), and Christians themselves have done more to help the poor than any other group or demographic in the world (and for clarification, I am not a Christian). Thank God many of them have been rich in order to give very large sums of money.


I wonder whether Christian charity matches the aid to the impoverished provided by government programs and benefits. More to the point, it is much more feasible to increase such government assistance if necessary than it is to stretch Christian charity beyond its current limits.



Varick said:


> It's not a lie at all. Taxation doesn't pay for anything? Where do you think the money gov't spends comes from? "Cancelled to prevent inflation?" I've read and listened to all kinds of left and right economists, and never have I heard taxation described that way.


"The level of taxation relative to government spending (the government's deficit spending or budget surplus) is in reality a policy tool that regulates inflation and unemployment, and not a means of funding the government's activities per se."


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

amfortas said:


> Let's not forget the precipitating cause of much of this European turmoil: the U.S. financial meltdown, which had nothing to do with "unsustainable social/welfare systems."


The US financial meltdown no doubt affected many nations, but it certainly was not the cause of "much" of the fiscal problems I refered to. The European nations who are in trouble now have been so and were well on their downward road long before the US recession



amfortas said:


> I wonder whether Christian charity matches the aid to the impoverished provided by government programs and benefits. More to the point, it is much more feasible to increase such government assistance if necessary than it is to stretch Christian charity beyond its current limits.


Well you bring up a great topic here and one I find fascinating. There is a direct inverse correlation of how big charities are, how many charities exist, and of course how much they give to the social/welfare programs that gov'ts create. The more programs via govt, the less charities there are. This has been studied. One source that I know off the top of my head is a book called, "Who Really Cares" which is all about charity.

Following your idea about govt being better at providing for the poor, I can not agree. Not to say there aren't charities that are in inefficient, but nothing comes close to the inefficiencies of govt. And the bigger the govt, the more inefficient it becomes in a geometric rate. I have yet to see any form of organization less efficient than govt in all of human history. I'm not saying it isn't necessary, I'm not saying big corporations don't have inefficiencies, but nothing comes close to big bureacratic (almost redundant) govt.



amfortas said:


> "The level of taxation relative to government spending (the government's deficit spending or budget surplus) is in reality a policy tool that regulates inflation and unemployment, and not a means of funding the government's activities per se."


Ok, then to that statement (which is taken out of context), I have one simple question: If taxation does not fund gov't spending, then what does? Pleasant thoughts?

V


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Varick said:


> The US financial meltdown no doubt affected many nations, but it certainly was not the cause of "much" of the fiscal problems I refered to. The European nations who are in trouble now have been so and were well on their downward road long before the US recession


I think you underestimate the worldwide effect of the U.S.'s financial malfeasance, but I'll leave to someone more expert in international economics to weigh in.



Varick said:


> Following your idea about govt being better at providing for the poor, I can not agree. Not to say there aren't charities that are in inefficient, but nothing comes close to the inefficiencies of govt. And the bigger the govt, the more inefficient it becomes in a geometric rate. I have yet to see any form of organization less efficient than govt in all of human history. I'm not saying it isn't necessary, I'm not saying big corporations don't have inefficiencies, but nothing comes close to big bureacratic (almost redundant) govt.


And yet over time we have come to entrust government (at various levels) with such previously privatized services as law enforcement, firefighting, road building, and education. Of course, some would argue for a return to those days, forgetting the inefficiencies that prompted the change in the first place. Today many developed nations have government-run healthcare, operating more cheaply and with better results for the population as a whole than our pre-ACA "system."



Varick said:


> Ok, then to that statement (which is taken out of context), I have one simple question: If taxation does not fund gov't spending, then what does? Pleasant thoughts?


The passage I quoted is a basic statement of MMT principles. If you feel I've taken it out of context, please specify how I've misrepresented those ideas.

According to MMT, governments that issue their own currency create new money by spending it into circulation. So the government's ability to spend is independent of taxation.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2014)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Situation A:
> A man finds out about a charity in India for providing street children with clean water and resources. A sudden feeling of guilt overrides his conscience, as he is solidly middle class and had never given money before to such things. He's had a stable job for over 10 years and never gave to charity! The brochure which he reads emphasizes the fact that "no one cares for these children" for the most part around the world, and this really bothers him. Well, this charity looks like it would do the trick, so he signs up to give a $500 lump-sum in charity. That's about half a week's paycheck for him. It's a big step that is borderline-difficult for his budget, but once he's done it, he feels like a great weight has lifted off his chest, and can be satisfied with his efforts and his goodwill. It definitely makes up for doing nothing in the past 10 years! Deep down inside though, although his friends applaud him, he still feels a bit awkward because he'll never understand true deprivation unless he gives all his money away. For one month he will watch his budget, and once he's in the clear, it's back to regular life! Obligation to humanity, check!
> 
> Situation B:
> ...


I couldn't help but notice that you posed this question, and then disappeared, leaving only a cryptic comment about more questions to come. Are you only going to throw out questions and then disappear, or do we get to hear your thoughts? You must have had your reasons for the question. I'm curious as to how you would answer your own question.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

DrMike said:


> I couldn't help but notice that you posed this question, and then disappeared, leaving only a cryptic comment about more questions to come. Are you only going to throw out questions and then disappear, or do we get to hear your thoughts? You must have had your reasons for the question. I'm curious as to how you would answer your own question.


_Huilun_ has switched to a psych major. Her post was 'exploratory' and a deliberate provocation; the extensive 'drift' may have been anticipated.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2014)

Ukko said:


> _Huilun_ has switched to a psych major. Her post was 'exploratory' and a deliberate provocation; the extensive 'drift' may have been anticipated.


Are we doing her homework for her?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

DrMike said:


> Are we doing her homework for her?


Sure, kids of today don't acknowledge any ethics at all, it's just an façade... ut:

/ptr


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2014)

Yeah, but I still think the OP should participate in their own threads.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Yeah, but I still think the OP should participate in their own threads.


Once she signed off on it, it ain't her thread anymore; it belongs to all of us. 

Hey _Huilun_, you OK?


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

I'll keep my money and save up for the child I plan to adopt (legitimately, not through that "adopt a child" front).

No matter what that brochure says, I have no idea where that money is going.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

amfortas said:


> And yet over time we have come to entrust government (at various levels) with such previously privatized services as law enforcement, firefighting, road building, and education. Of course, some would argue for a return to those days, forgetting the inefficiencies that prompted the change in the first place.





Varick said:


> I have yet to see any form of organization less efficient than govt in all of human history. *I'm not saying it isn't necessary*, I'm not saying big corporations don't have inefficiencies, but nothing comes close to big bureacratic (almost redundant) govt.


I would also add that we should eliminated the Dep't of Education. Our educational results have been on a downward spiral since it's inception in the 1970s. And it has nothing to do with "not enough money." I believe we spend more per student than almost any country in the world and are rated with some of the lowest scores and assessments in almost any developed nation in the world.



amfortas said:


> Today many developed nations have government-run healthcare, operating more cheaply and with better results for the population as a whole than our pre-ACA "system."


Outside of Costa Rica which has a hybrid of Gov't Run healthcare and private Insurance I am unaware of any country that has better health care than the US pre-ACA. Let's not forget that Costa Rica also has a fraction of the US's population. It's a lot easier to run things with a smaller amount of people in a much geographically smaller country.

And more cheaply? Sweden almost went bankrupt in the late 1990's because of their "perfect" gov't run health care system. There are waiting lists all over Europe and in Canada for some basic procedures sometimes by months, and even some cases, years. Procedures where here in the US with private insurance, those same surgeries usually happened within a few days. Wait till you see our waiting lists, especially with our elderly some years from now with this so-called "Affordable HealthCare Act."

Do you know how many MP's of the UK came to the US for state of the Art surgeries in the past 20 years? Dozens and Dozens of them. How many gov't officials from all over Europe did the same?

The head of the Canadian Health System (mind you, the *#1 person in charge of the ENTIRE Canadian System*) had to have open heart surgery. Do you know where he went? Michigan.

We never had a "Health Care" crises here in the US. We had a "Health *Insurance*" problem with approx 12-18 million (Not the erroneous 35-40 million number which has illegal immigrants, college students, and young people in their 20's who CHOSE not to buy Health Insurance so they have more money in their pockets, bundled up in that number) who needed help desperately - many of which had Medicaid or could have received it.

We could have done about 10 different possibilities to bring down costs massively to make it more affordable for everyone. Our gov't (More accurately ONE SIDE of our gov't) took the 11th possibility, and passed it into law.



amfortas said:


> The passage I quoted is a basic statement of MMT principles. If you feel I've taken it out of context, please specify how I've misrepresented those ideas.
> 
> According to MMT, governments that issue their own currency create new money by spending it into circulation. So the government's ability to spend is independent of taxation.


You are correct, perhaps "out of context" was the wrong phrase to use. I meant it out of context in terms of the source and school of thought it comes from. I reject much of MMT, for it is based on a post-Keynsian theory of economics. People like Paul Krugman (who is one of the most foolish people I have ever read when it comes to economics - and just about everything else the man writes), Pilkington, Juniper et al follow it and believe in it. Theories that have proven disastrous again and again, yet proponents constantly blame other things (like the US being the main cause of the European financial crises - not their massive social spending policies).

When statements like what you quoted: _"The level of taxation relative to government spending (the government's deficit spending or budget surplus) is in reality a policy tool that regulates inflation and unemployment, and not a means of funding the government's activities per se."_ are made, again, I ask the same question: Then where does the money that gov't spends come from.

If all the money that gov't spends came from the printing of money (ie: issuing their own currency) you would have massive inflation so fast that within a few years, total financial collapse would occur. This simple Economics 101 fact that is completely evaded by the MMT proponents is why I reject MMT almost wholesale. It is so elemental that the VAST majority of money that ANY gov't spends comes from taxation (the next biggest source is deficit spending, ie: spending money which they do not have - again which many proponents of MMT say there is nothing wrong with). If most of the money came from printing more money, almost every country would go bankrupt and we would have complete world-wide economic collapse.

V


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

When it comes to charity, both! Every little bit helps. But I guess I would rather more people be in the mindset of person B, just cuz person A seems to be doing it to feel good about himself more than the good of those he's helping. Idk


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Wood said:


> A lot of the people in the developing world didn't ask the Americans to interfere with their choice of government though, or to provide weapons and loans to their corrupt leaders.
> 
> etc etc.


Of course, that is on the shoulders of influential people, amongst whom you wouldn't find Luke or The Doc. No, I'm afraid folks like Wrahms can't blame us for living where we do and setting aside a portion of our income for charity.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Wood said:


> In other words, giving is a selfish activity, because it makes you feel good. Poor people are needed for this activity, so let us ensure that there are some poor people around, then we can give them some money to show how close we are to our god.
> 
> Of course, poor folk are the lucky ones, they are suffering so they are even closer than us to god. We do not therefore need to actually care about alleviating their suffering for this very reason. Indeed, we can use the opportunity of giving to them to try to improve their morals, after all, they wouldn't be poor in the first place if they were hard working upright decent Christians.
> 
> ...


That is quite a straw man you have there. You do realize that that doesn't represent in any way what myself or The Doc believes, right? Religious people don't live in a petting zoo or a little cardboard box so you can label them and look at them occasionally for a laugh. We're just as novel and interesting as yourself, and can be just as selfish or unselfish, etc.

What I'm sure we do believe, which might not be all that hard for you to register, is this: it is Christ-like to be compassionate. It is Christ-like to make sacrifices for other people. We feel good not necessarily because we feel good about ourselves, but because love and compassion are positive feelings. The act itself, and the thought that whatever we've done can be helpful, is what feels good. Is it really that hard of an idea to wrap your head around that we can genuinely love other people and feel compassion?


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> What I'm sure we do believe, which might not be all that hard for you to register, is this: it is Christ-like to be compassionate. It is Christ-like to make sacrifices for other people.


Though of course, he's not the sole model for compassion and sacrifice.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

ptr said:


> Please simplify, I don't feel any compelling reason for either!
> They should really concern themselves with the poverty of their own locality (nation), India is a rich nation even if their spread of wealth is frightfully uneven. But then, You could say that about the US as well! My reasoning is that it is way to easy to focus on "problem's" in far away exotic places and feel content with donating pittance, but equalizing Your own back yard takes much more courage!
> 
> /ptr


I would go with this. Did Christ say "love your neighbor", or "love someone you know nothing about halfway around the globe"? Both of these men would do well to find someone in their own nation who needs help and share a bit of their soul with them, not just money.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I would go with this. Did Christ say "love your neighbor", or "love someone you know nothing about halfway around the globe"? Both of these men would do well to find someone in their own nation who needs help and share a bit of their soul with them, not just money.


You raise an interesting point. Jesus, quoting the law, did say "love your neighbor." But when asked in response, "Who is my neighbor?" he went on to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan, which suggests that our neighbors can and should include people of different backgrounds and beliefs. From that perspective, perhaps it's not enough to care only about those most like us.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I would go with this. Did Christ say "love your neighbor", or "love someone you know nothing about halfway around the globe"? Both of these men would do well to find someone in their own nation who needs help and share a bit of their soul with them, not just money.


Well, I think, though, that with the parable of the good Samaritan, he tried to get the point across that everybody is your neighbor. And then, also, when one stops to consider that all of humanity are God's children, then there really isn't any limit as to how far a person is from you as pertains to your helping them.

I wouldn't begrudge ANY giving, whether it remains local, or goes to the other side of the planet. Where I think we are losing ourselves here is in thinking that charity need only consist of monetary giving. That is an important part. But there is also our time and our talents that can be put to work to help others, and in that case, it can be given much more locally. One of the things in which I take great pride about my geographic location is that there is a huge outpouring of service when natural disaster strikes - and that is a regular occurrence. Whether it be from hurricanes from the Gulf of Mexico, or tornadoes, people from all over mobilize for cleanup. I have had the opportunity to help out on several occasions - although in both instances it also led to a really bad case of poison ivy (another thing we have in abundance, unfortunately).


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Though of course, he's not the sole model for compassion and sacrifice.


Quite right. Nor did he wish to be. His desire was that all would exhibit compassion and sacrifice. Those are two ideals all should strive for. When he summed up the laws and the prophets into just two, succinct commandments, the second was to love our neighbors as ourselves.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2014)

DrMike said:


> Quite right. Nor did he wish to be. His desire was that all would exhibit compassion and sacrifice. Those are two ideals all should strive for. When he summed up the laws and the prophets into just two, succinct commandments, the second was to love our neighbors as ourselves.


You make it sound as though it's a struggle. I suspect that many more people show compassion and sacrifice than make it into either the history books or the news.

Unless, of course, one subscribes to the pessimistic view of humanity that most of us are more inclined to doing evil than doing good and Jesus was an exceptional model (whether he wished to be or not). I don't.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> You make it sound as though it's a struggle. I suspect that many more people show compassion and sacrifice than make it into either the history books or the news.
> 
> Unless, of course, one subscribes to the pessimistic view of humanity that most of us are more inclined to doing evil than doing good and Jesus was an exceptional model (whether he wished to be or not). I don't.


I think it depends on the individual. Everybody has different skills and talents, and different areas in which they struggle. For some, giving and serving comes as easily as breathing - for others, it is more difficult. I have a friend who is always the first person there when someone needs help. He is great that way, and makes it all look simple. For me, though, it takes more will power. I tend towards laziness, and need lots of coaxing.

I do think, though, that if giving and charity were easier, then we wouldn't even be talking about this. You are right, though. The vast majority of people do good deeds all the time without fanfare. There was a news story I remember from a couple years back - a Secret Santa, who would randomly drop a check in some Salvation Army collection bucket for some large amount, can't remember, but it seems like at least $100,000. Nobody knew who was doing it. But news networks tried to find out who it was. But why? They wanted to do it anonymously - let them have that.

Humanity is flawed. I wouldn't say that we are more inclined to do evil, I will just say that we are mostly not inclined to do good. Doing good takes effort. That is not being pessimistic. It just simply is. It is recognizing things for what they are, and what we need to do. I actually have a lot of faith in the vast majority of humanity. It is the ones that get the lion's share of the publicity that make the rest of us look so bad.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> You make it sound as though it's a struggle. I suspect that many more people show compassion and sacrifice than make it into either the history books or the news.
> 
> *Unless, of course, one subscribes to the pessimistic view of humanity that most of us are more inclined to doing evil than doing good and Jesus was an exceptional model (whether he wished to be or not). I don't.*





DrMike said:


> Humanity is flawed. *I wouldn't say that we are more inclined to do evil, I will just say that we are mostly not inclined to do good.* Doing good takes effort. That is not being pessimistic. It just simply is. It is recognizing things for what they are, and what we need to do. I actually have a lot of faith in the vast majority of humanity. It is the ones that get the lion's share of the publicity that make the rest of us look so bad.


Many people say, _"I love humanity, but I don't like people."_

I don't have a lot of faith in humanity and it's not pessimistic, it's realistic. All one has to do is look at the history of humanity and the amount of pain, suffering, and destruction we have caused (the 20th Century alone has been by far the most murderous in all of human history). Now, one can counter and say look at all the good we have done and that's valid. We have done enormous amounts of good as well, but as DR. MIKE has noted, doing good takes a great deal of effort. The bad/evil we (humanity) have done is far more than the good. And much of that good has been done by few people or organizations, and even less by nations, compared to the rest of the world.

I have not met a lot of people who live in first world countries the likes of the USA and western Europe who have a deep understanding that these places are the exceptions of humanity. To be born in one of those places in the past 60 years or so has been an enormous blessing in and of itself. Squalor, poverty, being ruled with an iron fist, violently oppressed, lack of freedom, lack of liberty, torture (or fear of being tortured or murdered by your ruler) has been the norm for the *VAST* majority of humanity throughout all of history.

Living in overall "good" societies like these is so rare, that those who have been raised in such societies can easily forget, miss, and/or ignore the unbelievable *exception* they are living in.

This is why I say, _"I do not like humanity (in fact I almost have contempt for humanity), but I love people."_

V


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2014)

Varick said:


> as DR. MIKE has noted, doing good takes a great deal of effort. The bad/evil we (humanity) have done is far more than the good.


So I'd ask you and the good Dr, why does 'doing good' take a great deal of effort? And on what do you base your belief that we have done 'far more bad/evil' than good?

I think it's actually quite difficult to define and quantify 'good' and 'evil'. Sure, there are plenty of easy examples of mass murder (and the rest) in the history books, but that doesn't help us understand what is going on in many of the civilised societies that continue to thrive.

The UK has a population of around 65m. I wonder what proportion of those populations are, on balance, doing good and on balance, doing evil. Well the UK's prison population is around 90,000. Suppose this is only 1% of those who should be incarcerated (that would be 9,000,000) that still leaves over 56m going about their daily business in a lawful manner, with, I would suggest, a decent proportion doing good work and behaving in a neighbourly way.

To recognise that there is evil in the world is realistic. To believe that it is harder to do good than evil, and that, on balance, we live in an evil world is pessimistic. It would be over-optimistic to think that in 100 years, we could eliminate all evidence of evil, but without an optimistic outlook, it's difficult to see how or why we should do anything other than stay in bed and give up on the idea that, for example, the problem of the Israel v Palestine conflict can ever be solved.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2014)

I think the distinction is that, at least on a population level, it isn't a simple dichotomy of either doing good or doing evil. I think there is also an in-between - doing nothing. Simply because one is not doing evil doesn't mean that one is doing good. So the fact that the prison population is relatively tiny compared to the population at large does not mean that the remaining population is doing good. They just aren't doing evil.

Why is it harder to do good? Because doing good requires discipline. It requires abandoning selfishness. It requires putting the good of others over self. It requires giving of oneself. That isn't easy. Most people like to keep the money they earn, or at least spend it on themselves. Most people are jealous of their time, and like to spend it in ways that they enjoy. So it is easier to do the things that you like. Doing good is an action - doing. It is not merely the absence of evil.

Yes - defining good and evil is difficult. They are hard to define, but easy to recognize. In many cases, the act itself is neither good nor evil, but is defined by the circumstances in which it occurs. The taking of a human life, arguably, appears at face value to be evil. But killing a person who is about to kill an innocent? Most wouldn't count that as evil.

Look, I'm not saying that, since doing good is difficult, we should abandon any effort to do so. On the contrary, that is why we absolutely should strive to do good. One of the noble things about man is that he can rise above the simple, animalistic survival tendencies and act out of concern for a greater good, not merely out of self-preservation. Killing the weak and the sick is commonplace in the animal kingdom, and we don't count it as evil, because it is simply the only instinct the animals know. But man, seemingly alone in this sphere, can seek to help and succor the weak and the sick. Apply whatever theory you have as to why this is. My comments no doubt make my theory rather obvious. But with this higher intellect, it is our responsibility to use it to actively strive to do good.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2014)

DrMike said:


> Simply because one is not doing evil doesn't mean that one is doing good. So the fact that the prison population is relatively tiny compared to the population at large does not mean that the remaining population is doing good. They just aren't doing evil.
> 
> Why is it harder to do good? Because doing good requires discipline. It requires abandoning selfishness. It requires putting the good of others over self. It requires giving of oneself. That isn't easy. Most people like to keep the money they earn, or at least spend it on themselves. Most people are jealous of their time, and like to spend it in ways that they enjoy. So it is easier to do the things that you like. Doing good is an action - doing. It is not merely the absence of evil.


I can't agree that 'doing good requires discipline'. But maybe I'm willing to define 'good' more widely than you are. Teachers, doctors and nurses, social workers, carers - their jobs are to me a definition of doing good. Anyone doing a job, paid or unpaid, that actively promotes the well-being and advancement of someone else, or a community or society is doing good!


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I can't agree that 'doing good requires discipline'. But maybe I'm willing to define 'good' more widely than you are. Teachers, doctors and nurses, social workers, carers - their jobs are to me a definition of doing good. Anyone doing a job, paid or unpaid, that actively promotes the well-being and advancement of someone else, or a community or society is doing good!


I am not one who fetishizes the "caring" occupations. Yes, some may do it out of a desire to do good, but some may also do it simply because it is what interests them. Most occupations do some good for the community at large. There are good teachers, and there are bad teachers. Just as with any other profession. Why is someone who educates more good than someone who constructs houses?

I think the average person goes throughout life, most likely a net good to society. But that, I think, is more an outcome of the way the society is constructed. I think of doing good as a more active, not passive, activity.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned one of the most common human activities: raising children. While no parents are perfect and quite a few are far from it, I would still count the great majority of them squarely on the "doing good" side of the ledger--simply by their helping make the next generation possible.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2014)

Yes, I would agree. But judging by the birthrates - at least in developed countries, this activity is decreasing. But you are right - good child-rearing is definitely a good. I don't think anybody has omitted this as "doing good," so much as we have been looking more at "doing good" in terms of external actions towards those with whom we don't share a direct connection. I think it is much easier to do good to one's own offspring than to a complete stranger. There are maternal and paternal feelings and instincts that play a role with our offspring that don't apply to those with whom we share no familial association.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2014)

DrMike said:


> I am not one who fetishizes the "caring" occupations. Yes, some may do it out of a desire to do good, but some may also do it simply because it is what interests them. Most occupations do some good for the community at large. There are good teachers, and there are bad teachers. Just as with any other profession. Why is someone who educates more good than someone who constructs houses?
> 
> I think the average person goes throughout life, most likely a net good to society. But that, I think, is more an outcome of the way the society is constructed. I think of doing good as a more active, not passive, activity.


I'm not fetishising...just mentioning the most obvious examples of groups of people who, assuming basic competence, aim to do good for others. By all means list anyone who makes a contribution to society - workers in construction, energy and utilities, defence etc etc. My basic point is that society is filled with people actively doing good.



amfortas said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned one of the most common human activities: raising children. While no parents are perfect and quite a few are far from it, I would still count the great majority of them squarely on the "doing good" side of the ledger--simply by their helping make the next generation possible.


Absolutely.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I think it is much easier to do good to one's own offspring than to a complete stranger. There are maternal and paternal feelings and instincts that play a role with our offspring that don't apply to those with whom we share no familial association.


To a point that's true, but let's remember that doing good for one's own offspring is a daily chore over many years (whether or not you're "feeling it" on a given day), while caring for a complete stranger is typically a much rarer, elective activity, and often more of a "feel good" experience for that very reason.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2014)

Don't get me wrong - I absolutely believe that the most important work you can do is within your own home. But it is still a much easier thing to help your own than a stranger. There are doubtless numerous reasons - one being that you do it so frequently that it become easier, but this is common with any form of service - the more you do it, the easier it becomes. But also, even in lower mammals and other animals, the nurturing and protective instincts are present, and are often quite strong.

But yes, it is a larger work overall to care for one's own children. Still, though, I think it is easier to care for one's own offspring than a stranger. There aren't those inherent instincts towards caring for strangers. But I think the question we are addressing in this thread - and again, it would be nice if the OP were to jump in here and offer some clarification - is motivations to do something that does not feel instinctual, and goes beyond helping those close to us. Because ultimately, we need to expand ourselves and seek to help out others, regardless of whether we have a personal connection.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Because ultimately, we need to expand ourselves and seek to help out others, regardless of whether we have a personal connection.


No argument there.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not fetishising...just mentioning the most obvious examples of groups of people who, assuming basic competence, aim to do good for others. By all means list anyone who makes a contribution to society - workers in construction, energy and utilities, defence etc etc. My basic point is that society is filled with people actively doing good.


Yes, but it is also acting out of self-interest. Unless they are doing it for free. That their chosen profession is providing a benefit to society is great. But it doesn't really count in the context of this ethical experiment, because they are receiving monetary compensation for their effort. What we are getting at are things done with no thought of compensation. Child-rearing gets closer to the mark, then, than teachers and doctors, etc. Yes, they are all net goods to society, but we are talking about a higher level of good, the kind of good that is done out of unselfish motivation, the kind of good that is done without expectation of reward.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I would go with this. Did Christ say "love your neighbor", or "love someone you know nothing about halfway around the globe"? Both of these men would do well to find someone in their own nation who needs help and share a bit of their soul with them, not just money.


Good ole Darth Vadner, it's been a while.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2014)

DrMike said:


> Yes, but it is also acting out of self-interest. Unless they are doing it for free. That their chosen profession is providing a benefit to society is great. But it doesn't really count in the context of this ethical experiment, because they are receiving monetary compensation for their effort. What we are getting at are things done with no thought of compensation. Child-rearing gets closer to the mark, then, than teachers and doctors, etc. Yes, they are all net goods to society, but we are talking about a higher level of good, the kind of good that is done out of unselfish motivation, the kind of good that is done without expectation of reward.


I was picking up the wider issue about good in society - not the narrower issue of charity as in the experiment. See post #61 onwards, initiated by the discussion about the Good Samaritan.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> I was picking up the wider issue about good in society - not the narrower issue of charity as in the experiment. See post #61 onwards, initiated by the discussion about the Good Samaritan.


And he was mentioning another issue. But moving on, I personally do think that going above and beyond in a self sacrificial manner like the Good Samaritan, is it's own form of good and imo in most instances a higher form. When we do things for other people without propping ourselves up is hard to do, and because of that we grow and everyone else does too.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

As an aside, have you folks ever heard of Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders? It's an organization that provides health services to people in the midst of poverty, disease, drought, war, and general natural disasters all over the world, and they received the peace prize in 99. I've had the pleasure of working with people from MSF during missionary trips over the years and these people put themselves in danger by going into pretty much the worst situations, giving medical care to refugees in actively violent areas like Sudan. Not trying to solicit here, just mentioning a group that's been right around the top of my list for some time.

Here, check them out:

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.or...udy-reveals-widespread-loss-life-due-violence
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news-stories/voice-field/gaza-truce-has-finally-been-respected



> Since Friday, Nasser hospital in Khan Younis has received large numbers of wounded because of the renewed fighting in Rafah, a little further south. With wave upon wave of wounded arriving, Nasser hospital was overwhelmed. I've been told they recorded a bed occupancy rate of 200 percent.
> 
> They didn't know where to put all the patients. That's why they started to send the injured to other hospitals, including Al Shifa hospital, in Gaza City, where MSF is working. They were really in need of help.
> 
> *MSF has been working in Gaza for more than 10 years, providing medical, surgical, and psychological services. It also responded to the 2009 and 2012 emergencies in Gaza.*


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I was picking up the wider issue about good in society - not the narrower issue of charity as in the experiment. See post #61 onwards, initiated by the discussion about the Good Samaritan.


Yes, in general, liberal Western society has created a framework where the general activity works toward common good. Various factors contribute to that - better education, more stable governments, stable currencies, better standards of living, and more stable households. And these systems allow for the creations of markets where people can generally profit off of being good, in the general sense.

But even in the developed world, it is recognized that a higher level of good is also required. As Luke mentioned, the good actions that go above and beyond merely self-interest. And not only within their own borders, but also to those parts of the world where even the basic societal level of good is absent. That is part of the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan was not truly a neighbor in the strictest sense, other than in the context of neighboring countries. But he cared for someone, not only not a part of his family, or society, or country. He cared for a foreigner in need - and what is more, a foreigner whose whole society looked down on the Samaritans. Our obligations to help others extend beyond our levels of comfort, to everybody who is in need - even those who might otherwise despise us. The priest and the Levite who passed the wounded man might very well have filled very good roles in their society - good fathers, good in their callings, helping those whom they provided service. But they were unwilling to go above and beyond that.

By fulfilling our good roles in society, we keep the society going and good. But to make things better requires a higher level.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

Is there a misreading of the Good Samaritan here? Jesus chose to talk about the Samaritan, not merely to represent someone who the Jew would recognise as the least likely neighbour, but to remove any chance that the Jew would feel the slightest self-interest in helping. Not only would it not cross your mind to help, you would actually find the idea of helping repellent. It's about making an emotional statement, not just a simple symbolic tale to represent the concept of 'neighbour'.

As has been argued back and forth in this discussion, is it really charity to do good because you feel good about doing it? According to Paul, compassion and sacrifice alone are not sufficient.



> And though I bestow all my goods to feed _the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing._


( First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13 (KJV))

I probably shouldn't try dipping my toe in the cloudy waters of biblical interpretation - even reading Wiki on the subject, you can see how much this has been disputed.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

You don't do charity so you can feel good about doing it. But feeing good about it is a by-product of doing charity. I care for my children, not because I hope to feel good for caring for them, but because I love them. The feeling good comes too, though. Simply because there is a reward associated with an action does not mean the reward is the motivation for the action.

Also, consider, that unless you have performed an act of charity, you really have no concept of the types of good feelings that can accompany it, and so charity really does stem from selflessness. But you are right - charity is not merely compassion and sacrifice. Charity is the pure love of Christ. It is the free giving of yourself to others. It is loving all, unconditionally. It is forgiving all their trespasses, without reservation. It is to do for others what Christ himself would do where he there.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It's in the Bible! "But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." I'm not religious, but can understand this.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2014)

However, I'm not interested in the higher biblical standard for charity; it becomes mixed up in the more complicated debate about who Jesus is/was, and we don't need to go into that here. Like Ken, I'm not religious, but you don't have to be to see that common or garden charity which has a positive benefit, irrespective of the motivation, is a good thing.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> As an aside, have you folks ever heard of Médecins Sans Frontières/*Doctors Without Borders*? It's an organization that provides health services to people in the midst of poverty, disease, drought, war, and general natural disasters all over the world, and they received the peace prize in 99. I've had the pleasure of working with people from MSF during missionary trips over the years and these people put themselves in danger by going into pretty much the worst situations, giving medical care to refugees in actively violent areas like Sudan. Not trying to solicit here, just mentioning a group that's been right around the top of my list for some time.


They are a fantastic organization. Unfortunately they just lost (I believe 4?) doctors who were murdered by the Taliban in Afghanistan a little over a month ago. These people are truly saints.



MacLeod said:


> As has been argued back and forth in this discussion, is it really charity to do good because you feel good about doing it?


You answered it here:



MacLeod said:


> Like Ken, I'm not religious, but you don't have to be to see that common or garden charity which has a positive benefit, irrespective of the motivation, is a good thing.


Like I have mentioned before, I do not concern myself by the motivation of others. I concern myself with the actions of others. If donating time and/or money to a charity or a cause actually does good, then who am I to say anything negative about it. Again, if you do certain behaviors, you will start to feel the result. Stop waiting to feel good in order to do good. Do good, and you will start to feel good. And if feeling good becomes your prime motivating factor for giving to charity, then I say God bless! Just keep it going. Like Dr Mike said, feeling good is a natural by-product of charity.

V


----------

