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.

 

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.

 

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.)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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)

 

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)

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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!