Giving: On donating disposable income

[Suburbanite]

Their are plenty of people you're probably neglecting to help if you have money to spend on charity.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Cephus But time and effort are not something limited to the affluent, they're something that anyone can give.

By affluent, I don't mean Bill Gates and the richest of the rich. I mean affluent in a comparative sense. Those who are suffering are not affluent. Those who are not suffering, but cannot give, may be affluent, but it is most likely not the case that they are. Those who can give, i.e. they have disposable income, however, fit within the category of affluent.

Quote by: Cephus Unfortunately, trying to control the poor population is going to be met with calls of racism and hatred by the liberal asshats who seem to think that out of control breeding is a natural right. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm saying that there's a reason these people are poor to begin with and it has little to do with not having money, but with a complete inability to do anything useful with it. In today's world, it would be difficult to change the dynamics behind the poor because you've got a lot of people who think they have a right to be that way and trying to change it denies them their rights.

Well, proactive strategies at population control certainly beat other alternatives such as violent extermination. We can satisfy these "asshats" by proposing strategies like giving aid priority to those countries who have population control measures, such as free condoms and sterilization centers.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready We aren't obligated or morally obligated to protect people from their own bad choices.

According to my premises, those who can prevent bad (I'll try to stop using the word "we," as I suppose some of us cannot give) should prevent bad, and as suffering is bad, they should prevent suffering. If that entails protecting people from bad choices, then it is so.

However, we might make the case that what people do to themselves does not qualify as suffering, but rather fits in a different category, so that those who can prevent bad do not necessarily have to give to help them. Then we would have to adopt a paramount ideal like self-responsibility.

There may still be a lot of people to help though, because a lot of people suffer due to factors out of their hands, such as tsunamis and generations of poverty.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I don't think people "shoud" do anything unless THEY are compelled to do so.

That kind of thinking endangers ethics. When each does only what they think is right, we have something called egoism, which is a threat to ethics and civilized behavior. True, most of them may conform to making only certain choices in order to fit in with a cultural trend or something like that, but egoism permits deviants who do what would otherwise be classified as a wrong to not do wrong, and thus not be justifiably punished. When people make up their own moral obligations, we have egoism.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy There is no physical barrier preventing the affluent from giving, hence they can give. If it causes them more suffering than it alleviates, then, from your premises, they shouldn't give. Your conclusion that the affluent should be obligated to give most/all of their disposable income to the suffering, is in conflict with this and is therefore false.

"Physical" barriers are not the only things determining what the affluent can do. If giving causes the affluent more suffering than it alleviates, and goes beyond the point of marginal utility for charity, then they simply cannot give. Thus, they would not be morally obligated to give.

But I reiterate that this is not the case for most affluent, as they can give their disposable income without suffering, besides, perhaps, the mental anguish that might come with not being justifiably spending on frivolous items. If it came to the point where they believe they need that Gucci bag, for instance, then it may be the case that they cannot give the DI that they will spend on that bag.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy He most certainly can give. There is no physical barrier to him giving, and, from your premises, there is no moral barrier. For there to be a moral barrier, your premise must then change to "If we can prevent bad, then we should prevent bad, as long as it doesn't violate an arbitrary and subjective threshold of selfishness".

The threshold is in determining what a person can do. But having a limit to what a person can do is inherent to the nature of "can," "could," and the capacity to give. If we determine a threshold for each person to give, then we simply lose the meaning of the word "can." Just as we make the determination that the suffering person cannot give, we may make the determination that an affluent person who must keep all his income, because, for instance, he has to pay for his wife's heart surgery this month, cannot give as well. Then, that affluent person may not have DI at all, besides perhaps a few dollars to spend on candy bars while in the hospital waiting room. He cannot prevent suffering, and is thus not obligated prevent it.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Hence, your seemingly objective argument of “he who can give should give”, becomes the subjective and redundant argument of “He who should give should give”.

It is still he who can give. By the definition of disposable, those with DI can give. DI can be spent of Prada. It can just as easily be spent of prawns for the homeless or population control in Africa.

Quote by: Chancellor Why do we have a moral obligation to prevent suffering? From where does this obligation come? What constitutes the prevention of suffering?

The obligation for those who can prevent bad comes from the premises that suffering is bad, and those who can prevent bad should prevent bad. If suffering is bad, those who can prevent bad can prevent suffering, and as they should prevent bad because they can, they should prevent suffering because they can. It is hence a moral obligation, and charity is therefore not supererogatory, which means, as I stated earlier, that it is good to do but not bad to not do.

The prevention of suffering can take many forms, whether it be putting food in a famine-stricken person's belly or teaching a homeless kid down the block how to read. But it's pretty simple: suffering would be alleviated in either the short-term or the long-term.

Quote by: Chancellor You have yet to establish that this "obligation" even exists much less that it is invariable.

It comes from the premises; it seems to be a pretty tight argument from Singer. What I am talking about is helping those who are suffering. Isn't suffering always bad? Those who can prevent bad should prevent bad all the time given they always can. Thus, these affluent should always prevent suffering, and their DI is an available, potentially viable means to "can."

Quote by: ZNFYRH The choices above are missing one. Charity is an individual's choice. The OP mainly talks about the ethic of giving to others who need it. There are times when I think it is right, and times when I don't, but that's my own personal morality.

Perhaps what you're suggesting fits under "charity is supererogatory" choice, where it would be good to do, but not good to not do.

Quote by: Suburbanite Their are plenty of people you're probably neglecting to help if you have money to spend on charity.

We should try to be fair in distributing aid because while we may help suffering in one area, there is still suffering in other places, and if we want to minimize suffering, we should help all areas.

There may still, however, be people that slip through the cracks. Does that mean that whole of a good program of giving should be thrown into the trash? No, we can at least try to maximize the good that we do, and maybe try to lessen the number of those falling through the crack. Those can prevent bad would always have the obligation to do so regardless.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Epistemologist Perhaps what you're suggesting fits under "charity is supererogatory" choice, where it would be good to do, but not good to not do.

Not quite. I think the idea of "good" is subjective. I look long and hard at any charity before giving them money.

So if I'm making a purchase and they offer me a stuffed bear for $11 with the proceeds going to St. Jude's, I do it. If they want money for something else, I probably don't.

The point is that I personally don't think giving to charity should be something that is expected. It should be something that a person does based on their own personal morality.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Epistemologist Utilitarian ethicist Peter Singer writes that affluent people such as those in the West should help those who are less fortunate, such as those who are afflicted by famine. He outlines his position in a simple argument:[list=1][*]Suffering is bad[*]If we can prevent bad, then we should prevent bad[*]Therefore we should give all/most of our disposable income to those who are suffering

What constitutes suffering? There are all types of suffering, and varying amounts of suffering, and who would decide who's suffering? Usually the dustributors of the wealth take a hefty sum for themselves off the top. We're all here to take care of ourselves, getting too much aid from the so-called wealthy makes the unwealthy lazy and lazier. Not good for motivation, plus the giving breeds corruption. Preventing bad is an impossibility. That's dreamland type thinking. Plus most of the proponents want somebody else to do it, not themselves.

[Osborn F Enready]

Epistimologist said: According to my premises, those who can prevent bad (I'll try to stop using the word "we," as I suppose some of us cannot give) should prevent bad, and as suffering is bad, they should prevent suffering.

So what of those who choose to "suffer", because they think they deserve nothing better, or are to lazy, unmotivated or disintrested in seeking better?

Are you saying we have no free-will choice to suffer, if we so choose?

Who would you be to rob that choice of men, and under what auspice of authority?

Also, is it not obvious that one mans suffering is another mans pleasure. Many would not think a crowded ballroom made up of laughing, intellgent people was a threat to anyone, but, not all people have issues with anxiety, social interplay and conversation, do they? The man with anxiety and social lack of fluency, regards that ballroom of people as a policeman may view an order to kick down the door of an armed gang known for mass murder single-handedly..... A situation that seems to reflect fight or flight, massive urgency and utter peril.

The only good is life, the only bad, that which robs it without just causation.

Epistimologist said: If that entails protecting people from bad choices, then it is so.

That is where we differ. People have no right to protect people from themselves, if that help is unwelcome, unwanted, or unsolicited.

"Protect" is a word that implies force, or a "force" that one must be protected from, or protect others from, or a tool that is used to protect.

At the same time, people can't be forced to help others, regardless of how justifiable that need is. Its simply unethical, and I would like to see it explained if you see differently.

Epistimologist said: However, we might make the case that what people do to themselves does not qualify as suffering, but rather fits in a different category, so that those who can prevent bad do not necessarily have to give to help them. Then we would have to adopt a paramount ideal like self-responsibility.

Some of us already adopted that paramount ideal, which is self-responsibility.... in fact, some of us founded a nation on that ideal, and created laws around the concept of the right to liberty, which entails the right to succeed, or fail, the right to prosper or wallow in loss, the right to dream and look-up, or the right to pity and look down. Almost all who have succeeded have known failure, yet the bulk of those who fail haven't learned how to achieve success. If success were easy, wouldn't we all be happy? No, because there would be no challenge, no "point" of where good is seperated from bad, rich from poor, talented from untalented, strong from unfit, clean from slovenly, intelligent from stupid.

Epistimologist said: There may still be a lot of people to help though, because a lot of people suffer due to factors out of their hands, such as tsunamis and generations of poverty.

We all deal with nature, and the turbulence of living, regardless of what strain of life we discuss. Plants and animals deal with natural catastrophe just as man does.... to the best of their individual ability.

Helping another can be called two things, honorable or despicable, depending on the "welcome", or rejecting of that aid by those who need it, or the way in which that aid is provided, through theft or its opposite, benevolence, kindness and a SELFISH intent to please ones inner views of what is good or evil, kind or callous.

I have never seen an act of selflessness.

As much as one mans terrorist is another mands freedom fighter, one mans charity is another mans burden.

Charity and burden can only be interpreted and defined by the individual, as it is they who must bear the result of the act, both of giving, and of taking.

Epistimologist said: That kind of thinking endangers ethics. When each does only what they think is right, we have something called egoism, which is a threat to ethics and civilized behavior.

Sometimes, and in many cases often, society is far more damaging, cruel and deadly to humans than individuals could ever be. Ethics are an individual issue, regardless of what collectives call themselves or presuppose themselves to be, they are still just that.... an amalgamation of individuals attempting to remain stable and anonymous in a world of natural instability. They have no more, and no less stake in life than any individual, and no more or less right to it either. "society" takes many shapes of injustice, and few of justice. Rarely is society anything people would recognize as "moral or ethical" when viewing its workings, its bylaws and operating standards.

Some societies have started under noble cause, with noble intent, but few if any have ever proven to justify respect over time as government, which society depends on, is fire, and an all consuming fire if left unchecked, as it usually is, since stable society breeds complacency and apathy.

Its the struggle of life that brings out the best in man, and the worst in man, but neither compare to that of the best of society, or the worst of societies acts. Societies have brought more death and destruction to this earth than any individual ever has, so you tell me which is more "ethical", society or the individual perspective?

Those that seek to exist to fulfill their own selfish goals and agendas pale in comparison to the greed and corruption of any society which has yet to be born, or has been born.

Power corrupts, and the more that power is concentrated, the more corruption you will see. The wider the scope of power, the wider the scope of abuse of it. The more death that needs to be dealt in defence of a proclaimed moral or ethical cause, the more lies that must be told to make men accept those claims of one being more righteous to that claim of life than others.

What makes a hero different than war hero, and are either worthy of celebrating, to you? Why?

I see a hero as a person who takes on great personal risk of nature or created enviroment to save life. Saving life for lifes sake, not due to a belief of one life being more valuable than another, as a war hero would be forced to "rationalize". War doesn't make heros, it destroys them by putting them on a cross of rationalization for their actions.

Epistimologist said: True, most of them may conform to making only certain choices in order to fit in with a cultural trend or something like that, but egoism permits deviants who do what would otherwise be classified as a wrong to not do wrong, and thus not be justifiably punished. When people make up their own moral obligations, we have egoism.

Humans have egos, therefore we have egoism. You seem to be railing against a trait of humans which is inherant, unalienable.

Show me a man who claims to be self-less, and I will show you a lying, selfish man.

We are born imperfect, and will remain imperfect individually, always. It is through evolution and natural selection, that we improve our species, but through education and empathy that we improve ourselves.

To credit ethics to any one group, to be defined, held as moral "judges" is unethical in itself. We all have our own measure of ethics, of life, of happniess and of survival, and we all have our own "bar" to which we measure whether life is valuable or not.

What does it mean to say "liberty or death"? Its says to live by ones own measure, ones own means, or to choose risking death as a more valuable choice than servitude, complacency and apathy.

I choose liberty or death, and that is a constant, regardless of what moral or ethical "definition" is set tomorrow, the next day, or any day while I live, regardless of who says it, how its said, or what force those words are intended to carry. Man can't "live" in a prison, but he can exist. Those that value that existence over living, have never known living, or deserved it. They traded security for defense, they traded thinking for being told, they traded their tastes for an opinion, and they traded their chance for living for a chance at existence.

Without the individual, society could not exist, much like ethics and morality. No matter what claim is made on ethics by society, it is the individual who is the final gatekeeper on what is ethical, and what is not, by tolerance or intolerance of that which is thrust upon them. Those who allow that choice to be shaped by others, refuse to take a chance at living, in exchange for a dull, prisoned existence living at the feet of their moral masters, not as a servant, but as peon, a footstool, a stepping stone for those he believes are better than he himself.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: pist "Physical" barriers are not the only things determining what the affluent can do. If giving causes the affluent more suffering than it alleviates, and goes beyond the point of marginal utility for charity, then they simply cannot give. Thus, they would not be morally obligated to give.

They can still give; they just, by your argument, shouldn’t. That’s in conflict with your original conclusion that the affluent should give most/all disposable income to charity.

Quote by: pist But I reiterate that this is not the case for most affluent, as they can give their disposable income without suffering, besides, perhaps, the mental anguish that might come with not being justifiably spending on frivolous items.

It’s probably the case that giving their money away would alleviate more suffering than it would cause, but it’s very unlikely that it would cause no suffering. Not having a butler or six cars might very well cause suffering, albeit minor, to a rich man who feels he has earned it. So it may alleviate a lot of suffering and cause slightly less, but the point is that the suffering caused is to the giver, and the suffering alleviated is of the receivers. Why should he be obligated to lower himself into suffering in order to help a complete stranger?

Quote by: pist It is still he who can give. By the definition of disposable, those with DI can give. DI can be spent of Prada. It can just as easily be spent of prawns for the homeless or population control in Africa.

Exactly. So anyone with disposable income can give it away, but your argument is that only some of them should give away a certain amount, based on an arbitrary and subjective threshold of selfishness.

Hence there is not, as the OP argues, an objective criteria for deciding whether to give to charity. The argument is therefore meaningless.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Epistemologist Well, proactive strategies at population control certainly beat other alternatives such as violent extermination. We can satisfy these "asshats" by proposing strategies like giving aid priority to those countries who have population control measures, such as free condoms and sterilization centers.

Which is all well and good until you realize that the biggest asshats out there are groups like the Catholic Church who are completely against condoms and sterilization and even telling people about the risks. Everyone is just supposed to magically stop being human because some guy in the Vatican with a funny hat tells them to.

[Alive]

In principle, I agree with Singer's (and your) premises. And I disagree strongly with all the people on this thread who seem to think that people in the third world are poor because they choose to be poor. But I still question whether the effect of most charities is actually to reduce suffering.

You suggest that charity be coupled with population control methods. And if the receiving nation says no, what do you do then? After centuries of imperialist intervention in their lands, why should they listen to us? And even if they do start handing out free condoms, what's to stop people from refusing to use them? Or should we require China-like one-child policies as a condition for aid? Considering that it would be more moral to restrict our own birth rate due to the environmental costs of being an American, we'd be hypocrites to do that!

When you enter a new factor into a very complex system, it is hard to know what effects it will have, especially in the long term. It is important that ethically-motivated people consider not only their side (giving appeases my ethical sense, makes me feel altruistic, etc.) but also the other side--what effects will the charity actually have? Will curing this disease cause more overpopulation or less? One might even argue that the third world needs to grow on its own, internally, and there is very little the West can do to encourage them (as I said, our history in this regard is not very positive). I am not making this argument, just saying that it's not as simple a problem as give money --> reduce suffering.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Alive In principle, I agree with Singer's (and your) premises. And I disagree strongly with all the people on this thread who seem to think that people in the third world are poor because they choose to be poor. But I still question whether the effect of most charities is actually to reduce suffering. You suggest that charity be coupled with population control methods. And if the receiving nation says no, what do you do then? After centuries of imperialist intervention in their lands, why should they listen to us? And even if they do start handing out free condoms, what's to stop people from refusing to use them? Or should we require China-like one-child policies as a condition for aid? Considering that it would be more moral to restrict our own birth rate due to the environmental costs of being an American, we'd be hypocrites to do that! When you enter a new factor into a very complex system, it is hard to know what effects it will have, especially in the long term. It is important that ethically-motivated people consider not only their side (giving appeases my ethical sense, makes me feel altruistic, etc.) but also the other side--what effects will the charity actually have? Will curing this disease cause more overpopulation or less? One might even argue that the third world needs to grow on its own, internally, and there is very little the West can do to encourage them (as I said, our history in this regard is not very positive). I am not making this argument, just saying that it's not as simple a problem as give money --> reduce suffering.

In total agreement. To empower others to reduce their suffering by enabling them to gain skills and trade freely and equaly in the worlds market place is of great importance. Those whom allow such franchises need supports from the "city" markets and we consumers can rationalise between high profiting exploiting corporations as opposed to unique offerings of a true tradesperson from the third world

[Cephus]

Quote by: Alive And I disagree strongly with all the people on this thread who seem to think that people in the third world are poor because they choose to be poor.

While you're right that nobody gets up in the morning and decides to be poor, poor people, regardless of nationality, share some common problems. They tend to be undereducated, overpopulated and ignorant of proper handling of money. If you want to go after those problems, I have no issues whatsoever with charity training people how not to be poor and setting them on the right path. Just handing them money, however, is not going to address the basic causes of poverty though.

[Osborn F Enready]

Alive said: And I disagree strongly with all the people on this thread who seem to think that people in the third world are poor because they choose to be poor.

I didn't say, ONLY because they chose to be. My nation, as all nations, has a hand in why third world nations are third world nations.

Alive said: just saying that it's not as simple a problem as give money --> reduce suffering.

I agree.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Epistemologist It comes from the premises; it seems to be a pretty tight argument from Singer. What I am talking about is helping those who are suffering. Isn't suffering always bad? Those who can prevent bad should prevent bad all the time given they always can. Thus, these affluent should always prevent suffering, and their DI is an available, potentially viable means to "can."

But you're assuming the validity of the premise. That is not establishing the obligation.