The Purpose of Charity

[Iniquitous]

I used to hold that view until we bought a farm that had an outbuilding with a room in it someone had lived in and we let a homeless person we met through a friend stay there.  I learned a lot from him, not the least of which is that there's a network of people who make it their business to live off of others.  He'd gone to someone in Richmond who helped others learn how to panhandle effectively and bragged about it one night when he'd been drinking.  Not surprisingly he was an alcoholic and in the two months he was with us he was in the hospital twice.  I made a couple of calls and discovered that he'd been 'in the system' in detox at least a dozen times, enough times that he wasn't welcome at the shelter that was attached to it anymore.  There are other shelters he could go to, so no one thinks he was left without resource.  At the point that I told him I didn't want addicts around my son he disappeared.  It made me really sad, but you can't help people who won't help themselves.  I won't give them money, period, after that experience.  I'll give them food, I'll donate clothing, especially outerwear, but that's the extent of it for me.

So.... you judged him because he has a disease. A disease that he obviously cannot get a grip on. Does that make you feel good? I mean, I understand not wanting certain people around your son, however it is the fact that you seem to proudly boast how you learned sooooo much and yet you missed the biggest point. The man was sick with a disease. A disease that will make you do whatever you can for your next drink.

Yes, a person has to want to help themselves in order to get better but you certainly did not give him reason to want to help himself. You did some snooping on him, found the dirt on him and then kicked him right back out. You did the exact same thing everyone else has ever done to him.

When it comes to homelessness I think a big part of what needs to be addressed is addiction and mental illness.  Please don't think that I'm saying that every person suffers one of those maladies, I don't mean to say that, but I think it's fairly prevalent and when Reagan cut mental health funding and everyone bought into the 'free everyone from institutions' line, I think it left a sector of the population with very few options.

And then you bring this up. So it's not like you didn't realize the man was an addict. So, you did what you did with the full knowledge of what it means to be an addict.

Have you tried to adopt a baby in this country?  Not to go entirely OT (even as I do so :) ), but I know several people who have and it's a loooooong process.  I also think that many Americans are ignorant of just how many kids end up in the foster care system in this country because people assume there aren't a ton of kids waiting.  Couple those things with the horrific conditions some children live in in other countries, and I can see why people adopt from other countries.  No one is shining a spotlight on the horrific conditions some children live in in this country because it doesn't garner news ratings and it's not popular with the people who have very deep pockets when it comes to campaign contributions, let alone the people who tout smaller government.

Have you ever tried to adopt in another country? You want to talk about how long, look at the years people spend going through the red tape to adopt from a different country. The number of trips they have to take to that country just to get through all of that red tape. The amount of money they spend. It's mind blowing.

U.S. Newborn Adoption - Average Wait Time

Average time from preparation of portfolio to match with
birthmother (includes time spent in false starts):
   Less than 3 months....................34%
   4 to 6 months............................19%
   7 to 12 months...........................20%
   13 to 24 months.........................17%
   Longer than 24 months...............10%

Time between birth and legal finalization:
   Less than 6 months....................54%
   7 to 12 months...........................38%
   Longer than 12 months..................8%

35% of respondents experienced at least one false start.
15% were matched after the child had already been born.
- See more at: http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=2161#sthash.Ft2lmkW8.dpuf

China
Adoptions to the U.S. in 2009: 3,001
Adoptions to the U.S. in 2010: 3,401

China Adoption Wait Times

Average time from completion of dossier to referral*:
   Less than 12 months....................53%
   13 to 24 months............................4%
   25 to 36 months...........................15%
   37 to 48 months...........................20%
   Longer than 4 years........................8%
* Shorter wait times generally reflect special-needs program.

Time from referral until child came home:
   Less than 3 months.....................42%
   4 to 6 months..............................25%
   7 to 9 months..............................20%
   Longer than 9 months..................13%

94% spent three weeks or less in China .
- See more at: http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=2161#sthash.Ft2lmkW8.dpuf

Ethiopia
Adoptions to the U.S. in 2009: 2,277
Adoptions to the U.S. in 2010: 2,513

Ethiopia Adoption Wait Times

Average time from completion of dossier to referral:
   Less than 3 months.....................53%
   4 to 6 months...............................4%
   7 to 9 months.............................15%
   10 to 12 months..........................20%
   13 to 18 months..........................20%
   Longer than 18 months..................8%

Time from referral until child came home:
   Less than 3 months.....................42%
   4 to 6 months..............................25%
   Longer than 6 months..................13%

Of the 98% who traveled to adopt, 85% spent two weeks or less in Ethiopia .
- See more at: http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=2161#sthash.Ft2lmkW8.dpuf

Russia
Adoptions to the U.S. in 2009: 1,586
Adoptions to the U.S. in 2010: 1,082

Russia Adoption Wait Times

Average time from completion of dossier to referral:
   Less than 3 months......................40%
   4 to 6 months..............................11%
   7 to 12 months.............................22%
   13 to 18 months............................9%
   Longer than 18 months.................18%

Time from referral until child came home:
   Less than 3 months......................18%
   4 to 6 months...............................40%
   7 to 9 months...............................24%
   Longer than 9 months...................18%

44% took three or more trips to Russia to complete their adoptions.
36% spent three or more months in Russia, total.
- See more at: http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=2161#sthash.Ft2lmkW8.dpuf

South Korea
Adoptions to the U.S. in 2009: 1,080
Adoptions to the U.S. in 2010: 863

South Korea Adoption Wait Times

Average time from completion of dossier to referral:
   Less than 3 months....................24%
   4 to 6 months............................25%
   7 to 9 months............................24%
   10 to 12 months.........................14%
   Longer than 12 months...............13%

Time from referral until child came home:
   Less than 3 months.....................49%
   4 to 6 months..............................35%
   Longer than 6 months..................16%

Of the 71% who traveled to adopt, 50% spent one week or less in South Korea.
- See more at: http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=2161#sthash.Ft2lmkW8.dpuf

[Iniquitous]

Interesting and well-made arguments, everyone.

Towards Iniquitous Opheliac, but also for everyone else: You say you don't want to judge people, correct? I am assuming that your point of view is that you give help; no one should get it in their heads to act like they dictate to where the aid goes, for they would then be assuming a power beyond their rights. However, I would like to point out that it seems you are judging when you determine that the tsunami or natural disasters in Japan are more important than the day-to-day poverty happening in America. What does a disaster mean to you in terms of donating and being charitable?

How on earth did you get that I determined that the tsunami or other natural disasters around the world are more important than the day to day poverty in the US? I posted what I do for my local area - which I do far more for my local area than a extra donation from my paycheck whenever there is a natural disaster work donates to.

So let's go over this again. I donate a % of every single one of my paychecks to United Way. I go and work the food lines - either under the bridges in the city or at the soup kitchens. I donate food to the shelters and food pantry. I buy clothes from goodwill/salvation army and donate them to the shelters. At christmas time I take four to five angels from the trees in Walmart and buy for each child. I help organize musical events throughout the city where all proceeds go towards the homeless. And, when there are natural disasters I donate extra money (or time) to assist - case in point, the massive tornado in Alabama. Not only did I donate extra money to the fund for the victims at work, I took a weekend and went down to help.

[Moondazed]

Selangor, industrial and high tech capital of Malaysia. Malaysia makes much of its money from oil, aggressive exploitation of the land, and outsourced electronics. The political parties target the high income and lowest income group, because the middle class group calls out the government on corruption. They no longer even bother hiding the fact that the welfare system is just buying votes from the lower income groups and youths. The system taxes the middle class heavily and gives the money to the poor.

It's hard to get a proper, unbiased citation for this, but there's election data. The poor states (Sabah, Sarawak) have the strongest support of the government, whereas the richer states (Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Penang, with the exception of Johor) have the least support for the government.

I didn't realize you didn't live in the US either.  I don't know of a state in the US that matches the statistics you gave.

[Valthazar]

There are a lot of suffering people in the US, but I'm Asian and have more in common culturally with the suffering people in Asia or even Africa. ... a dollar can go so much further in Somalia than it would in the USA.

If the western world took this approach towards Asian and African countries, there would be a global uproar.  With that said, I think all Americans would be happier seeing our people actually putting our own citizens first.  But realize that many foreign countries are indebted to the Western hemisphere's generosity.

Making claims that "a dollar can go so much further in Somalia than it would in the USA," shows your ignorance for how much some people suffer here.  Issues regarding monetary efficiency are more a result of leadership.

[Moondazed]

Towards Moondazed: The story was good evidence, in my opinion. Now that you have it in mind, and now that you don't tend to donate money, but material goods that money can buy instead, do you still think the point of charity is to help others? Considering that our current systems of charity (the majority seem to be based around money) do not seem to live up to your standards, do you think that the majority of charity today is still ultimately ineffective? Also, even though you have donated clothes and material objects, it seems to me that a resourceful "con man" might still be able to convert those into drugs and smokes and whatever else.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough... I don't give cash to people who are panhandling.  Giving cash to an organization is different, in my opinion. 

Interesting that you jump to me thinking that the man who stayed with us was a resourceful conman (correct me if I have that wrong).  I think he was an addict who found a way to feed his addiction using other people's charity, but that doesn't necessarily make him a conman, it makes him an addict.  A resourceful conman can use income from any source, I don't assume that there's a higher proportion of conmen in the homeless sector.

[Moondazed]

That doesn't mean I have to blindly give money to someone who has proven to be playing the system like the person in moon's post, however, that would not prevent me from continuing in the future to give, because there are hundreds and thousands out there that are not playing the system and need that help.

That's exactly how I feel about it.

So.... you judged him because he has a disease. A disease that he obviously cannot get a grip on. Does that make you feel good? I mean, I understand not wanting certain people around your son, however it is the fact that you seem to proudly boast how you learned sooooo much and yet you missed the biggest point. The man was sick with a disease. A disease that will make you do whatever you can for your next drink.

Yes, a person has to want to help themselves in order to get better but you certainly did not give him reason to want to help himself. You did some snooping on him, found the dirt on him and then kicked him right back out. You did the exact same thing everyone else has ever done to him.

And then you bring this up. So it's not like you didn't realize the man was an addict. So, you did what you did with the full knowledge of what it means to be an addict.

I'm going to be as diplomatic as I possibly can in responding to this.  Please don't be so arrogant as to believe that you have a right to make gross assumptions about what happened without knowing ALL of the details.  I boasted about exactly nothing.  If you read it that way, that's your biases showing, not what I actually said.  You have no idea what lengths I went to, I'll thank you not to jump on your high horse and make accusations such as:

Yes, a person has to want to help themselves in order to get better but you certainly did not give him reason to want to help himself. You did some snooping on him, found the dirt on him and then kicked him right back out. You did the exact same thing everyone else has ever done to him.

Not only is it rude, it's obnoxious, not to mention patently untrue.  Perhaps in rereading you'll note that I did NOT kick him out, I set boundaries around what he needed to do to help himself if he wanted to remain in proximity to my family.  Should you find yourself able to actually absorb the facts of the situation through the thick haze of your judgments, let me know and I'll fill in the blanks.

Have you ever tried to adopt in another country? You want to talk about how long, look at the years people spend going through the red tape to adopt from a different country. The number of trips they have to take to that country just to get through all of that red tape. The amount of money they spend. It's mind blowing.

I know more about this subject than you obviously assume. 

Have you seen the documentary Stuck?  It's about kids who are stuck in horrible situations in other countries because of adoption corruption.  If you read my comment as saying that people should adopt outside the US versus inside, you've once again assumed wrong.

It seems like you're purposely seeking outrage as opposed to trying to engage in a reasonable and measured dialog.

[Torterrable]

In my opinion, the arguments here have been mostly well made and civilized. There's been a little tension, but I feel like it's been mostly held back.

That being said, I'd like to try and clarify some of my points, because, as I said, I am notoriously bad at responding to arguments in a good way. Also, I hope from the bottom of my heart that tempers do not flare up; this is meant to be purely intellectual and partially detached.

So, on the case of judgment...do we have the right to judge others in giving charity? It would seem that we have to judge others, that we are pressed into that choice by the limitations of our time and potential to donate. Does this judgment and how we use it demonstrate a potential other motive besides our donations? If I spend my time helping cats instead of humans, does this mean I think that humans don't deserve my help and that helping cats is a worthier goal (and therefore better for my time, mind, and spiritual heath)? As donating and volunteering is, for the most part, voluntary, do our choices reveal that we have some sort of self-benefit agenda?

Be careful in passing judgment and interpreting examples. I have made the same mistake already.

Desperation makes people very resourceful, but I have no other way to respond to that aspect of the argument.

[Iniquitous]

No, actually I'm reading what you post. Let's begin with the bottom and work our way up.

You asked if I knew how long it took to adopt in the US. I posted quite a few different links as to how long it takes to adopt from other countries as opposed to adopting from the US. Almost all of which are longer than it takes to adopt in the US. That doesn't even include the usually prohibitively expensive cost of adopting from overseas. You fire back that I have misread your comment. No, I didn't. You tried to say more people adopt out of the US because it is a shorter time frame and because they feel a need to rescue the children trapped in orphanages in foreign countries. I proved that part of that belief is false.

As for the situation of someone living in your outbuilding. The way it reads, to me at least, is you have decided he was a conman ( you brought up the fact he went to someone who told him how to effectively panhandle ). You made a statement that implies homelessness = alcoholic ( "Not surprisingly, he was an alcoholic" ). You talk about making calls to dig into his past and from that information, you made a judgment against him.

Now as I said before, I can understand not wanting your child around certain situations that can, and do at times, turn violent. However, coming from someone who has worked the shelters and listened to the stories from those that come in, I have to wonder if it ever crossed your mind that maybe he disappeared because he was offended.

All I get from your post is that you do, in fact, associate homelessness with cons (else why bring up the whole conversation about the guy you took in going to a man who taught him how to panhandle). If I'm wrong then I certainly apologize. But your bringing up that statement does make it seem that you have judged those seeking money as running a con.

[Valthazar]

So, on the case of judgment...do we have the right to judge others in giving charity?

I'm not even sure what you mean by this.  The right from which entity?

It seems like you are turning a very individual choice (as to how to donate charitably) into some sort of institutionalized, formal endeavor with rules and regulations.

[Torterrable]

Valthazar, sorry if I did not make my point clear.

We inherently pass judgment when we make the decision to be charitable. When I make the choice between volunteering for tutoring or volunteering at a cat shelter, I believe that, in determining one as being more "worth my time", I have determined the other one as being of less worth. I am focusing on our thought process as we consciously and unconsciously make decisions in charity.

[Moondazed]

You asked if I knew how long it took to adopt in the US. I posted quite a few different links as to how long it takes to adopt from other countries as opposed to adopting from the US. Almost all of which are longer than it takes to adopt in the US. That doesn't even include the usually prohibitively expensive cost of adopting from overseas. You fire back that I have misread your comment. No, I didn't. You tried to say more people adopt out of the US because it is a shorter time frame and because they feel a need to rescue the children trapped in orphanages in foreign countries. I proved that part of that belief is false.

Allow me to quote what I actually said, which was far more than just, "it takes a long time".  It seems like you latched onto that tidbit and ignored the rest.  You're welcome to disagree, I'm speaking of experiences of people I know when I bring that up.

Have you tried to adopt a baby in this country?  Not to go entirely OT (even as I do so :) ), but I know several people who have and it's a loooooong process.  I also think that many Americans are ignorant of just how many kids end up in the foster care system in this country because people assume there aren't a ton of kids waiting.  Couple those things with the horrific conditions some children live in in other countries, and I can see why people adopt from other countries.  No one is shining a spotlight on the horrific conditions some children live in in this country because it doesn't garner news ratings and it's not popular with the people who have very deep pockets when it comes to campaign contributions, let alone the people who tout smaller government.

As for the situation of someone living in your outbuilding. The way it reads, to me at least, is you have decided he was a conman ( you brought up the fact he went to someone who told him how to effectively panhandle ). You made a statement that implies homelessness = alcoholic ( "Not surprisingly, he was an alcoholic" ). You talk about making calls to dig into his past and from that information, you made a judgment against him.

Now as I said before, I can understand not wanting your child around certain situations that can, and do at times, turn violent. However, coming from someone who has worked the shelters and listened to the stories from those that come in, I have to wonder if it ever crossed your mind that maybe he disappeared because he was offended.

All I get from your post is that you do, in fact, associate homelessness with cons (else why bring up the whole conversation about the guy you took in going to a man who taught him how to panhandle). If I'm wrong then I certainly apologize. But your bringing up that statement does make it seem that you have judged those seeking money as running a con.

Wow, I wonder if you're aware of just how many assumptions you're making to reach these conclusions.  I stated the things I did because that's what actually happened and you read a LOT into them that I didn't say in any way.

What you get from my post is purely your assumptions and opinions, because as I clearly stated, I do NOT associate homelessness with cons any more than I associate anything else with cons, and I'm an optimist at heart.

[Valthazar]

When I make the choice between volunteering for tutoring or volunteering at a cat shelter, I believe that, in determining one as being more "worth my time", I have determined the other one as being of less worth.

This in itself is a biased assumption.  While certainly an important factor in choosing charitable acts, it is not necessarily the primary one.

Other factors I imagine would be taken into consideration include:

Affordability:  Some people who are struggling financially would prefer to be charitable through volunteer initiatives in-person, rather than financially-based initiatives.  A person may choose to volunteer at the cat shelter rather than tutor if it is closer, and they have to spend less on gas money.

Ease of performing the act:  Elderly individuals may prefer to volunteer as a tutor rather than participate in house-building initiatives simply due to their physical health.

I am sure there are others, these are only two right off the top of my head.

I am a little perplexed as to why you are trying to find a linear explanation for this.  Different individuals will have different reasons for their charitable acts.  Someone who lost a loved one from cancer may prefer to associate with those organizations.

[Torterrable]

Well, I have fallen into a kind of bias in that I am trying to find evidence, through any way, to support the argument I want it to support.

I see your point. I have tried to oversimplify the situation in order to better streamline my argument, which, in and of itself, caused problems.

How about mentally, then? Just in thinking, don't some people automatically pass judgment on what charities are good and which are not? For example, PETA, even though it is an animal rights group, gets a lot of flak. It may get a lot of donations, but that's besides the point; if an animal charity came to your door, would you prefer to give money to one that is not PETA rather than one that is? Neither?

I guess I'm trying to say that, given a choice between equally effortful or effortless endeavors in charity, the choices we make there automatically imply a determination of worth.

[Iniquitous]

I have posted what you said, I have posted my understanding of what you have said, you have fired back I am wrong and yet said the exact same thing over again as proof that I am making "assumptions" and "judgments" about you. Fact is, if you says you have friends that adopted from outside of the country because it is a loooooooong process here in the states - I provided you facts that show it actually takes longer to adopt outside of the states - which means that those that adopt outside of the states with the belief that it takes too long to adopt within the states are mistaken. They'd actually end up with a child more quickly to adopt in the states.

So how am I am misunderstanding you there? I'm not. I have factual proven my point and you argue against it.

As for the second issue. Again, I take from your own words. I even reposted them in parenthesis to show which ones I was going by. I make no assumptions on you. I tell you how what you say comes across. You are the one that is posting in such a way as to make it seem that homeless people learn to con people. I asked you a simple question of whether you thought it possible the man you had living in your outbuilding might have vanished because he was offended. I even pointed out that the way you worded yourself does indeed make it seem as if you are judging all homeless as con artists.

And you yet again fire it right back at me. I am not the one writing your posts. You are. I am telling you how it reads to me. I make no assumptions on you. I am pointing out to you how it reads.

As for continuing with you - I believe I will not. I find it pointless to keep repeating myself to someone who cannot reassess what they have written. So, thank you for this brief discussion, but I'll debate it no more with you.

Now then....

I do not agree Torterrable. Using your example here - a choice between tutoring or volunteering at the cat shelter. (We will ignore the fact that I love cats and just a couple steps below crazy cat lady here) I know what my strengths and weaknesses are ... I am not a very good teacher. I work a job where it is my job to instruct others over the phone on how to do things. I can tell you that it is not the best job for me because it frustrates the piss out of me to sit there and have to repeat myself over and over and over till someone understands. Thus, if I were to have two choices of how to donate my time to charity and one of them is tutoring, then I will obviously go with Option B. No one is going to learn anything from me and I am going to needlessly stress myself and the person I am trying to tutor out.

The decision is not a judgment against those needing tutoring. It is an understanding of what I can and cannot do as well as an understanding of what would be most helpful.

So, using a different scenario here. I have a choice between going to the local shelter to help sort through the donations or to the food kitchen to help cook the food that is to be served. Now, my skills for both are equal. I obviously know how to sort things and I am a good cook (better baker though). How do I choose? I choose based upon which one needs the people. If there are 10 people at the shelter to go through donations but only 5 at the soup kitchen to cook, I will go to the kitchen and put my skills to work there. And vice versa.

[Moondazed]

When I was young I stressed about helping others, about all of the ways that beings needed help, about all of the luxuries I had and what about the things that fell through the cracks???  I was lucky to have a wonderful Nana who sat me down and explained that while there are lots of negatives in the world there are also lots of positives, and no one person can fix everything, so people choose what's important to them and put their energy there, and because there are so many people doing that it somehow works out.  Simplistic?  Sure, but it helped me to stop fretting about the details and just do what I could.  I wish she was still alive so I could tell her how valuable that lesson was to me. :) 

It's right up there with my Dad telling me, "A dollar is a folding vote", and opening my young mind to the concept that everything we spend money on supports not only that particular product or service, but all of the things behind it.  Forgive me for going off topic, I just want to share the two things I remember most from my children, and the things that I think helped to shape me into the woman I am today. :)

Torterrable, it feels to me like you're trying to find a way to discount charities for some reason, or reduce a charitable act to an act of selfishness.  I'm sure some of them are done for selfish reasons, but all of them?  Or even most of them?  Not in my opinion. 

[Moondazed]

I agree that the discussion isn't going anywhere, IO, my point is that you're making a lot of assumptions and you insist you aren't.  A reasoned discussion isn't going to result from you clinging to the assumptions you made.  I have nothing against you at all, I just wonder if you realize that you're dismissing my responses instead of actually being interested in understanding what I was trying to share.  It's certainly easier to make assumptions and accept them as fact, but it doesn't lead to civil discourse and it doesn't lead to an actual conversation.

[Iniquitous]

Well, I have fallen into a kind of bias in that I am trying to find evidence, through any way, to support the argument I want it to support.

I see your point. I have tried to oversimplify the situation in order to better streamline my argument, which, in and of itself, caused problems.

How about mentally, then? Just in thinking, don't some people automatically pass judgment on what charities are good and which are not? For example, PETA, even though it is an animal rights group, gets a lot of flak. It may get a lot of donations, but that's besides the point; if an animal charity came to your door, would you prefer to give money to one that is not PETA rather than one that is? Neither?

I guess I'm trying to say that, given a choice between equally effortful or effortless endeavors in charity, the choices we make there automatically imply a determination of worth.

Again, using the scenario you set up. PETA vs another animal charity (we'll says SPCA).

In this case it is a matter of judging. I would donate to the SPCA before PETA, though it is because I've done my research and know that PETA actually kills 96% of the animals it takes in.

I get the feeling you are trying to paint charity with a very broad brush here and that is something that cannot be done. The act of giving charity - be it money, time or goods - is a very personal one with many, many differing reasons for the choices each person makes.

[Oniya]

Also, do the charities actually offer help in a non-discriminatory fashion?  I donate to Good Will over the Salvation Army for that reason.

[Torterrable]

IO brings up an interesting point, and, with the lack of purely identical potential charitable deeds, it is hard to present something like that. However, I still believe judgment is being passed in the idea that you are quantifying people; you are automatically saying that helping ten people is better than helping five. This type of judging doesn't support my argument anymore, of course; it brings up a whole different point about making people statistics and numbers, which is a completely different tangent.

Moondazed, I am somewhat playing devil's advocate and somewhat trying to see what I can find about human nature. At base, I believe human nature is self-interested (not selfish, mind you, but self-interested). I am trying to find that grain of self-interest in the doing of charitable deeds to prove my hypothesis about human nature true.

I see the complications, though, in attempting to eliminate personal preference in testing for how people perform charity. Ideally, only human nature would be the factor in determining charitable deeds.

[Iniquitous]

IO brings up an interesting point, and, with the lack of purely identical potential charitable deeds, it is hard to present something like that. However, I still believe judgment is being passed in the idea that you are quantifying people; you are automatically saying that helping ten people is better than helping five. This type of judging doesn't support my argument anymore, of course; it brings up a whole different point about making people statistics and numbers, which is a completely different tangent.

Moondazed, I am somewhat playing devil's advocate and somewhat trying to see what I can find about human nature. At base, I believe human nature is self-interested (not selfish, mind you, but self-interested). I am trying to find that grain of self-interest in the doing of charitable deeds to prove my hypothesis about human nature true.

I see the complications, though, in attempting to eliminate personal preference in testing for how people perform charity. Ideally, only human nature would be the factor in determining charitable deeds.

You are absolutely correct. We humans are self interested. It is in our best interest to be self interested.

However....

You are making a very simple mistake with this discussion. You are ignoring everything that disproves your belief and keep pushing to find one thing that proves your belief. That is not how it should work. If nothing proves you right, then by all reasoning, you should be able to accept you are wrong.

[Moondazed]

You are making a very simple mistake with this discussion. You are ignoring everything that disproves your belief and keep pushing to find one thing that proves your belief. That is not how it should work. If nothing proves you right, then by all reasoning, you should be able to accept you are wrong.

Well said :)

[Torterrable]

I suppose I am, although I would like to believe that I am not ignoring things that disprove my belief so much as I am trying to look at the from an angle that supports my belief.

Beliefs are fickle and unchanging things.

That being said, I find myself partially convinced that there are people who help because they believe that they simply want to help others, but I still feel like there is some unconscious ulterior motive that is simply not explored enough due to the complexity of what charity is.

I do admit that I am soundly thrashed in the argument, though, as much as I try to flail around.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Put simply, there are people who need and people who have time, money, resources and services they can donate.

What does it matter why a person gives?  People will give for any reason they can as long as there are those in need. 

The only restriction I place on giving is donations going to foreign countries.  I do not donate to the government or charitable organizations sponsored by the country.  I donate through US organizations who have the ability to control the assistance provided because I'm more certain of the help reaching those in need rather than going into the pockets of corrupt officials.

[Torterrable]

Put simply, there are people who need and people who have time, money, resources and services they can donate.

What does it matter why a person gives?  People will give for any reason they can as long as there are those in need. 

The only restriction I place on giving is donations going to foreign countries.  I do not donate to the government or charitable organizations sponsored by the country.  I donate through US organizations who have the ability to control the assistance provided because I'm more certain of the help reaching those in need rather than going into the pockets of corrupt officials.

My purpose for knowing why people donate, as may or may not have been said in the first post (I don't quite remember) is to understand how people work. The decision to perform charity originates from a long and complicated thought process that can hopefully enable a better understanding of how people's minds work.

[Moondazed]

I suppose I am, although I would like to believe that I am not ignoring things that disprove my belief so much as I am trying to look at the from an angle that supports my belief.

Beliefs are fickle and unchanging things.

Fickle, yes, but there's no reason they have to be unchanging.  Clinging to beliefs despite information to the contrary leads to closed-mindedness, in my experience.  YMMV