Giving money to charities is not altruism.

MattRose · Nov 13, 2010

laconicstudent said:
*holds out hand expectantly*

Me say: If they don't get safisfaction from giving they wouldn't do it at all.

No. You are the one making a claim, not I.

Ok, I know that when I give I'm doing it to make myself feel better or to relieve any guilt I may have because I have more money than others. I know that people don't give to charities that they dislike whether or not that charity does more "good works" than a charity they do approve of.

No, I haven't done a scientific poll, but isn't that frowned upon here anyway? Isn't science a four-letter word on this forum (literally for some members)?

razeontherock · Nov 13, 2010

Christianity has always embraced science. Some have been opposed, but currently they are in the minority. In the past, some of those opposed have been in leadership which didn't help anything.

The only 'problem,' is that you can't put G-d in a test tube. (And I'm really not sure I'm comfortable considering theology or philosophy or even psychology "science," but that's another matter)

Sound thinking still applies though.

laconicstudent · Nov 13, 2010

MattRose said:
Ok, I know that when I give I'm doing it to make myself feel better or to relieve any guilt I may have because I have more money than others. I know that people don't give to charities that they dislike whether or not that charity does more "good works" than a charity they do approve of.

Okay, so you have an anecdote.

MattRose said:
No, I haven't done a scientific poll, but isn't that frowned upon here anyway? Isn't science a four-letter word on this forum (literally for some members)?

For some members, yes. But the other 90% of us find that attitude tiresome. If you don't have any evidence regarding motivations for philanthropy in the general population, we aren't going to blindly accept your claims.

MattRose · Nov 14, 2010

laconicstudent said:
If you don't have any evidence regarding motivations for philanthropy in the general population, we aren't going to blindly accept your claims.

I can't post links but the doc is called whydopeoplegive.pdf. Of course you might deny that document as well. There are many others. The actual point I'm making isn't discussed often, simply because there is no disagreement (well 1 so far) on such a simple premise.
You have been consistent in saying no to my argument without offering any thoughts of your own (you're not a republican senator are you?). This isn't a tough theory. It's basically the same theory as to why one scratches their nose when it itches... because it feels good. That starving african kid needs food... I gave to a charity that will help him. Now I feel better. No one would would argue that they don't feel good when they give to a worthy cause and I'm sure you're onboard with this. My point is that most people put the cart ahead of the horse. It doesn't sit well that the "helping the misfortunate" part is secondary to the "helping myself" part. Have you given to a charity and afterwards it made you feel bad?

MattRose · Nov 14, 2010

razeontherock said:
Christianity has always embraced science. Some have been opposed, but currently they are in the minority. On [sic] the past, some of those opposed have been in leadership which didn't help anything.

If by "embraced" you mean tightly around the throat, I concur. To be fair most scientific advances, theories, and ideas have been accepted by the majority of christians. My previous statement was unfair as it exaggerated how many christians don't agree with science. Then again everyone agrees that most people exaggerate all of the time.

The disagreements with science only start when science goes against what (apparently) the bible or church doctrine says. That is why I took a jab at religion earlier. Remember that pesky evolution thingy that more than half of protestants don't believe in. Also homosexuality being a condition at birth is not believed by the majority of christians (I looked up several surveys on these two just to be sure.)

razeontherock · Nov 14, 2010

Well you raise some interesting premises, and I appreciate your humor.

If I can throw in a curve ball directly related to your OP:

a frequent sponsor here with an orange logo, digs wells in Africa. In places where the entire childhood of the village is spent carrying water. Once the well is working, there is time for education, and other normal aspects of life, like childhood. REALLY makes a difference, to a LOT of people! For a really long time ...

I first found out about this through a Christian band called Casting Crowns, who used their concerts as a platform for the cause du jour. I haven't checked their financial accountability to see what % of donations actually gets to the final beneficiary, but I'd sure be curious to see them.

AlexBP · Nov 17, 2010

MattRose said:
Well this isn't taking the direction I anticipated, so I'm going to show my hand. People don't give to charity to help others. The primary reason people give is because it makes them feel good. Hence my premise that helping others is not altruistic. One gives for a very basic and selfish reason... It makes me feel good to help another. The cause and effect are inverse to common thinking.

All you're doing here is trying to make it tautological that all charity is self-centered. Under your understanding of the system, how would it be possible for any act to not be self-centered? And if you don't believe that any act is not self-centered, why bother starting the thread?

If a person decides to take enjoyment from the act of helping others, then that is a virtuous decision. If a person decides to take enjoyment only from buying things for himself or herself, that is not a virtuous decision.

razeontherock said:
How can an organization be gay? It's attracted to other similar organizations?

When I read Matt's post I immediately thought the same thing. I guess great minds think alike.

MattRose · Nov 20, 2010

AlexBP said:
All you're doing here is trying to make it tautological that all charity is self-centered. Under your understanding of the system, how would it be possible for any act to not be self-centered? And if you don't believe that any act is not self-centered, why bother starting the thread?

I'm not bothered by acts that are viewed in the correct light. It just dawned on me one day that we as a society give deference to charitable people and we shouldn't. One who gives to charity already gets a reward by helping others (and thus feeling good about themselves). Next they also receive society's nod of approval. It's an unfair two-fer. These do-gooders might hurt themselves patting their own backs. I'm trying to prevent wrenched shoulders. Now you can see that this thread is actually an altruistic act on my part. Ummm.... I feel soooo good. Someone thank me quick.

seashale76 · Nov 20, 2010

From the free on-line dictionary:

1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others
2. (Philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others Compare egoism See also utilitarianism

a concern or regard for the needs of others, entirely without ulterior motive. — altruist, n. — altruistic, adj.
See also: Attitudes

Receiving a good feeling for helping someone does not negate the fact that some action can be altruistic. Some acts are entirely impulsive and the person doesn't think for a moment as to how it would make them feel or the consequences (good or bad) to himself/herself.

Let me share something inspiring with you that I saw just yesterday. It was about an Amish family. They were excommunicated and shunned for reading the bible in English and having bible studies with friends. Anyway, this young couple (with four little children) sold their dairy farm and gave away ALL of their savings to a needy family, expecting absolutely nothing in return. He just figured they'd start over again, and didn't mind doing so, because they were raised to work. When his little girl got lukemia, they didn't despair. Even though they were shunned, people came out of the woodwork to help them out. This man and his wife weren't giddy and stupidly happy- but they were joyful people. It was beautiful to see.

Has it occurred to you that humans are wired to give selflessly to others? The most miserable people on the planet are those who are selfish with their money, time, talents, and possessions. Forcing them to give doesn't improve their lot. It absolutely has to be of a person's free will.

For every rich person who brags about their charity for public accolade, there are many more who never tell anyone about their charitable deeds. Yes, it does feel good to give, especially if you see the results your giving has.

Asvin · Nov 20, 2010

MattRose said:
I'm not bothered by acts that are viewed in the correct light. It just dawned on me one day that we as a society give deference to charitable people and we shouldn't. One who gives to charity already gets a reward by helping others (and thus feeling good about themselves). Next they also receive society's nod of approval. It's an unfair two-fer. These do-gooders might hurt themselves patting their own backs. I'm trying to prevent wrenched shoulders. Now you can see that this thread is actually an altruistic act on my part. Ummm.... I feel soooo good. Someone thank me quick.

So you are suggesting that getting double rewards is not okay? Next time you win a trophy and a cash-prize, gladly let me know as I would love to take it away from you, as you giving it to me would be self-centered!!

MattRose · Nov 20, 2010

seashale76 said:
From the free on-line dictionary:

Receiving a good feeling for helping someone does not negate the fact that some action can be altruistic. Some acts are entirely impulsive and the person doesn't think for a moment as to how it would make them feel or the consequences (good or bad) to himself/herself.

...Has it occurred to you that humans are wired to give selflessly to others? The most miserable people on the planet are those who are selfish with their money, time, talents, and possessions. Forcing them to give doesn't improve their lot. It absolutely has to be of a person's free will.

For every rich person who brags about their charity for public accolade, there are many more who never tell anyone about their charitable deeds. Yes, it does feel good to give, especially if you see the results your giving has.

We've no argument that giving makes you feel good, or do we? I'm just trying to point out that the motivation only appears to be a selfless act. In reality it's not. This isn't complicated it's just ugly. You say "humans are wired to give selflessly". That would only be true if you didn't derive pleasure from giving. Instead give to a charity that you detest and walk away mumbling curses under your breath. Now that's selfless!

I'm sorry if I appear to be sucking all the life out of the room. I never thought people would argue this strongly. To me it's just logical to view the motivations for what they are. Would you agree that giving is 50% of the motivation and getting pleasure for giving is the other 50%? If you agree we can knock off early and still see the new Harry Potter movie.

seashale76 · Nov 20, 2010

MattRose said:
We've no argument that giving makes you feel good, or do we? I'm just trying to point out that the motivation only appears to be a selfless act. In reality it's not. This isn't complicated it's just ugly. You say "humans are wired to give selflessly". That would only be true if you didn't derive pleasure from giving. Instead give to a charity that you detest and walk away mumbling curses under your breath. Now that's selfless!

I'm sorry if I appear to be sucking all the life out of the room. I never thought people would argue this strongly. To me it's just logical to view the motivations for what they are. Would you agree that giving is 50% of the motivation and getting pleasure for giving is the other 50%? If you agree we can knock off early and still see the new Harry Potter movie.

I'll be honest- I don't always feel like giving- I simply feel it is a duty to do so (especially when I don't feel like it). It's not that I don't care- I do- but duty, guilt, and having the thought that if it were me or mine I'd want someone to help me are stronger motivators for me when it comes to giving. I don't want to offend you though- you're very thoughtful about all of these topics you've been bringing up because they seem to really bother you. However, I think you're somewhat over thinking this one. The thing on my mind when I think about giving and as I'm giving isn't really a feel good about myself feeling. Sometimes that occurs, sometimes it doesn't. That's just me though. If the resulting feeling was that spectacular- I'd have given ALL my stuff away ages ago! Speaking of (I do want to transition into minimalism as I do think less stuff would make me happier).

I plan on seeing HP tomorrow afternoon, btw.

razeontherock · Nov 20, 2010

So Matt, I have yet to see you respond to me pointing out that altruism isn't a stated objective of Christianity. Neither is selflessness. Instead, obeying G-d is for OUR highest good! Almost like He loved us, or something?

MattRose · Nov 21, 2010

They took my Thankgsgiving thread away! Darn grinches. I'm out of controversy. I also got a warning. I'll never build up enough power for that new bicycle. Maybe one of you guys could donate a bicycle to me for Christmas. I promise to do all my chores and keep my room clean.

seashale76 · Nov 21, 2010

MattRose said:
They took my Thankgsgiving thread away! Darn grinches. I'm out of controversy. I also got a warning. I'll never build up enough power for that new bicycle. Maybe one of you guys could donate a bicycle to me for Christmas. I promise to do all my chores and keep my room clean.

That was a unique thread. However, no worries. It's the internet. There'll be new threads. Have a good rest of the weekend.

razeontherock · Nov 21, 2010

Here's one thing Paul said re: this thread:

"the whole point of what we're urging is simply love - love uncontaminated by self-interest and counterfeit faith, a life open to God. Those who fail to keep to this point soon wander off into cul-de-sacs of gossip. They set themselves up as experts on religious experts, but haven't the remotest idea of what they're holding forth with such imposing eloquence."

1 Timothy 1 - The Message

There are some on this site that would like to see this censored as well, considering this version blasphemy, heresy, and probably six words you can't say on TV too. I think the shoe fits ...

AlexBP · Nov 23, 2010

MattRose said:
I'm not bothered by acts that are viewed in the correct light. It just dawned on me one day that we as a society give deference to charitable people and we shouldn't. One who gives to charity already gets a reward by helping others (and thus feeling good about themselves). Next they also receive society's nod of approval. It's an unfair two-fer. These do-gooders might hurt themselves patting their own backs. I'm trying to prevent wrenched shoulders. Now you can see that this thread is actually an altruistic act on my part. Ummm.... I feel soooo good. Someone thank me quick.

First of all, you never answered my question: under your understanding of the term, how is it possible for any act to not be selfish? Second, what do you mean when you say that "we as a society give deference to charitable people"? As I see it, our society generally celebrates selfish, greedy, egotistical people. At least that's the type that I see on TV most often. Third, even if I accepted your first two points as true, why would that make it wrong or unfair to praise charitable people?

Giving money to charities is not altruism.

MattRose

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

MattRose

Guest

MattRose

Guest

Well-Known Member

Newbie

MattRose

Guest

Unapologetic Iconodule

Legend

MattRose

Guest

Unapologetic Iconodule

Well-Known Member

MattRose

Guest

Unapologetic Iconodule

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency