The Purpose of Charity

Started by Torterrable, January 28, 2014, 07:51:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Torterrable

So, my roommate and I were having this discussion last night, and I thought I'd post it here, since it is, indeed, a topic for debate and controversy. My hope is that it's not a very intense one, but it is still one that is fun to discuss.

Why do we, as humans, perform good deeds? Why do we hold the door open for others? Why do we go out into the "bad neighborhoods" to serve food to people? Why do we go to cat shelters to rescue them?

As humans, are we truly trying to help others, or is the end of the charitable work not for them, but for us? Is self-improvement our ultimate goal, as opposed to helping others?

The argument was triggered when my friend mentioned a social work fraternity, Alpha Sigma Omega. It apparently had a reputation for doing "empty" social work, that is, social work that didn't have much of a back story, and thus seems to lack substance. One of us stated that, although the work may be "empty", since we are doing it for ourselves, that doesn't matter. The other stated that the purpose of charity does, indeed, matter, as, without knowing that we are performing goodness for others, the self-improvement doesn't take place. Thus, the self-improvement is actually a byproduct of helping others.

While it is very possible that one has both self-improvement and charitable intentions in mind when going out to help others, I am wondering which one is the dominating factor.

Also feel free to discuss why this information is important; my friend and I had an argument over that too, not long after.

alextaylor

Freakonomics goes over the theme quite a lot. The moral is that we do anything because we expect some kind of personal gain. Nobody is truly selfless.

Some people do these things because they expect an increase in prestige. What increases people's respect for you any more than helping others? If I had a million dollars, I could spend half of that on a good car, which would make people jealous of me. Or I could spend it on charity, which would make people love me.

Some people do these things out of empathy. You've probably heard the term "pass it on". I've been given quite a lot of money by strangers and they only made me promise to "pass it on". The concept here is that they've been low on resources at some point or another and promised to God or some other entity that if they could get the money they need at that time, they'd pass it on to someone in need.

Some people think that there's a higher power that judges their good acts. They may seem selfless in that they expect no reward from other humans, but they do expect a reward from a higher power.

Historically, the early Islamic empire was built on charity. Muslims are expected to pay somewhere between 2.5%-20% of their income to charity. It's considered charity because the money doesn't go into building structures or paying wages for leaders (unlike taxes), but directly into helping the poor, freeing slaves, feeding the crippled, etc. Not giving charity was punishable by death. A lot of people at the time actually donated far more of their wealth.

That charity money improved social mobility, as the poorest people had enough money to work their way into middle class. It also bought a lot of goodwill. I doubt it's possible to really convert people by the sword. But being generous to people is a great way to convert them. If someone knocked on your door and tried to preach to you, would you shoo them? What if they knocked on your door, gave you money you badly needed, then preached to you?

Their power came from spiritual wealth and prestige rather than material wealth and they used their excess material wealth to buy that spiritual wealth.

I did apply to MIT and Harvard at one point in my life but didn't get in. After interviewing all the people who did get accepted, I find that while some had worse scores and even worse communications than me, all of them had one thing in common - a history of charity. Even if it was a small one. Of course, this was a tiny sample size, but I'm sure it helped.


Personally, I donate and do a lot for charity. Ever since I was 13, I'd give a sizeable amount to charity. I find that it pays back very well. People will automatically have a positive view of a charitable person. It keeps you from getting greedy - your motive in doing things is to put that money to good use. Good people tend to be attracted to those who are not greedy. I make most of my present contacts from charitable deeds. And those contacts have pretty much doubled my salary in 1 year. You'll also fall into the same clique as millionaire philantropists... people who are happy to give you a financial boost or at least pay you very well for helping them.

Overall, I'd say charity pays damn well. It's even more powerful because nobody does it. It's hard to be outstanding in a group of politicians or a group of academics, but surprisingly easy to be outstanding in a group of philantropists.
O/O

Moondazed

Freakonomics is one of my favorite podcasts.

I'd imagine that the fact that human beings are fundamentally herd animals plays a part?  Why are we more satisfied with our lives when they include some kind of service to others?  I don't think of it as being selfless when I do things for others, my first thought is often along the lines of, "If I were in that position I would hope someone would give me a hand."  I don't know if that's directly to benefit myself, other than the benefit to my karma. :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Iniquitous

I do not donate my time, effort, money or belongings to charity with some notion that it betters me. I do it because I do not like to see others suffering. I do it because the tenets of my spiritual belief call for me to. I do it because I firmly believe in the concept of paying it forward and reaping what I sow.

I have been at the very bottom - no home, no vehicle, all of my belongings fitting into one bag and living in a homeless shelter while trying to get back on my feet again. I know first hand how much it sucks, how very demoralizing it is. I know the feeling of shame when you have to stand in line at a soup kitchen, the looks from people passing the line as they hurry to and from whatever it is they are doing. I know the mixed feeling of both joy and shame at finally getting a donation of clothes into the shelter that are nice enough to be worn for job interviews and they FIT!

Knowing those feelings as well as I do, I donate my time, my money, my energy to helping others that are in that boat. Until you’ve been there, you do not truly know how much your charity helps someone and how very grateful those down on their luck truly feel when someone stops thinking the world is all about them and remembers to help his/her fellow man.

I do it because I cannot stand the thought of someone going without when I have enough to ensure they do not. I do it because my spiritual beliefs require it of me. Not for the betterment of my soul but for the betterment of the person in need.

What kind of world would this be if every person on this planet stopped thinking “me me me me me me me me” all the time and started actually helping the people around them? Doing it simply because it is the right thing to do - no desire for remuneration
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


mia h

Quote from: Moondazed on January 28, 2014, 10:15:07 AM
"If I were in that position I would hope someone would give me a hand."  I don't know if that's directly to benefit myself, other than the benefit to my karma. :)
Or "Do as you would be done by" also known as the Golden Rule, taken right out of that there Bible.

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 28, 2014, 11:48:28 AM
What kind of world would this be if every person on this planet stopped thinking “me me me me me me me me” all the time and started actually helping the people around them? Doing it simply because it is the right thing to do - no desire for remuneration
Not saying that people shouldn't get involved in charitable organistions, but what makes it the right thing to do? Is fullfilling your "charitable duty" the most important thing or is it more important that someone's life is improved and the "charitable duty" is a secondary consideration?
If found acting like an idiot, apply Gibbs-slap to reboot system.

Iniquitous

#5
Quote from: mia h on January 28, 2014, 12:24:40 PM
Or "Do as you would be done by" also known as the Golden Rule, taken right out of that there Bible.
Not saying that people shouldn't get involved in charitable organistions, but what makes it the right thing to do? Is fullfilling your "charitable duty" the most important thing or is it more important that someone's life is improved and the "charitable duty" is a secondary consideration?

I think I made it clear in the rest of my post that the most important part of charity is improving those in need of help. Again, as I said before, I do not do it for recognition, I do not do it for money, I do not do it out of a sense of duty. I do not believe it should be done for any of those reasons. If you are going to get off your butt and contribute in some form to charity then it needs to be done because you have a serious desire to better the lives of those that are in dire need of help and for no other reason.

And btw, the bible is not the first to have the "golden rule". The concept actually predates christainity - for that matter it predates any of the abrahamic faiths (judaism, christianity, islam).
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Kythia

Does the "effectiveness" of the action matter?  If I'm a high powered lawyer then instead of giving up an hour of my time to help at a soup kitchen I'm doing far more good working an hour's overtime and giving that money to the soup kitchen.  Is that a necessary concern?
242037

Iniquitous

Why would you even worry about which is the better form of charitable giving?

I do not always donate money. I do not always go out and buy clothes to donate to shelters. I do not always go to work the soup kitchens. I do what I can do at that exact moment and time.

"Oh hey, I have an extra fifty on this check that I do not need for anything... let me give that to the food pantry." "Hm, there's a Under the Bridge Brunch this saturday and I have the day off... think I'll pop down and help work the food line." "Hm, I know the shelter needs clothes. Can't go to goodwill to buy any so let's see what is in the attic that I don't need anymore."

It ALL helps those in need, it is all effective in it's own way.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Kythia

What about zero effectiveness then?  If you donate a load of clothes not knowing that they already had more than enough.  Or going down to help the soup line when in fact they have enough volunteers and more are just getting in each other's way.  So actions that have the intent of helping those in need but actually don't. 

I'm just curious.  Its an interesting topic.
242037

Oniya

Many charities will put up lists of what they need (for example, the Purple Heart charity sent around a flyer saying they needed clothes of all kinds and small appliances).  Some will sell off what they don't need and get a monetary contribution out of your donation (such as GoodWill).  Larger and smaller sizes are often less represented (but just as needed) as 'average' sizes.  Last year, I donated one of the little Oni's out-grown coats to a charity drive and learned that it was the only child's coat they had received thus far.  If you show up at a place to volunteer and there are 'too many', it's always appreciated to ask what does need doing - maybe make a simple McD's coffee run for all of those volunteers!
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Kythia

So you don't believe it's possible to intend to help people but end up not doing?  Or, rather, that doing so shows a lack of, I dunno, creativity?
242037

Iniquitous

I do not believe in "zero effectiveness". There is no such thing when it comes to charity.

Have more than enough people to work the food line and cooking? Great, put the extras to work cleaning up or simply making those that come in comfortable and helping them.

Shelters will only stop taking clothes when the clothing pantry is to the point of bursting, but (and this is from personal experience) they never have enough. Specifically, they never have enough diversity in sizes. And you would be amazed at what some people will donate. Trash bags full of panties (really? Toss that shit in the trash.), clothes with stains, clothes with tears and rips, socks with holes, filthy clothes that haven't been washed.... shelter staff toss a lot of stuff that is donated because it is unfit.

Then there are the well to do women who will donate their old purses that are coming apart (handles broken or breaking, etc), their old cosmetic jewelry, old make up, half used bottles of hygiene products. All this stuff takes up space in the clothing pantry and reduces the amount of decent clothing that can be accepted. Anyway, I digress - if the shelter tells you they cannot accept it... check the local churches. Plenty run their own clothing closet.

Get told by the food pantry they cannot accept anymore food right then? Check the shelters, check the local churches. Both will have need for food.

The only thing "not effective" is sitting on your rump doing nothing. No matter what there is some place that will gladly accept what you have to donate - be it time, money, clothing or food.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Oniya

It might be possible to help-but-not-help with some of the smaller charities.  Although chances are that you end up helping someone.  Case in point - my mother-in-law and sister-in-law volunteer at a food bank in their area.  It's a small operation, and they don't have a lot of storage.  As a result, the volunteers (mostly retirees or fixed-income folks) who are helping distribute stuff periodically end up taking stuff home.  This means that they end up with a little more disposable income, and that ends up circulating in the community as well.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

mia h

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 28, 2014, 12:44:26 PM
I think I made it clear in the rest of my post that the most important part of charity is improving those in need of help.
I wasn't taking a cheap shot or anything, it's just that I've recently been forced to wade through Bentham, Mills & Kant; which is even less fun than it sounds. I think we can probably put down in the consequentialist column  :-)
If found acting like an idiot, apply Gibbs-slap to reboot system.

Torterrable

So I've read through the discussion as best I could, and I'm trying to further it by proposing more conversation topics. This is partially because I'm not very good at typing out solid responses, and partially because...I want to know more. Consider this merely a survey of one facet of human nature.

However, Kythia brings up an interesting point. Consider the following:

In being charitable, is it necessary that you understand to what goal your charity is going towards? From what I've seen, many of your volunteer works (not to belittle them; I admire each and every one of you for what you do to help people) seem to aid, for a lack of better words, a "faceless mass". However, what if we gave them faces, but not necessarily the faces that you expect? What if that man who took your coat is using it to hide a gun to rob people? What if the person you just fed is going to go home and buy drugs? If you knew this were happening to each and every one of the people you helped (an impossibility, of course, but please bear with me), would you still volunteer at the soup kitchen or donate clothes? If another opportunity to help people that required more commitment appeared, such as working at a rehabilitation clinic, would you take it?

Additionally, consider marginal benefits in taking on more volunteers. New volunteers require training and overseeing to become effective and, no matter how big the volunteer group, at a certain point, the clashing of various people will end up causing a loss in production. With this knowledge in mind, some people still attempt to join one of these groups, even when others are available (this happens with a tutoring group on campus for me). Do you think these people still have genuine charity in mind, or are they more looking for something to make them feel better, to improve themselves, even if there is a cost to others?

Finally, when you go in to volunteer or donate, do you feel good? Do you consider that good feeling a side effect of volunteering, or do you volunteer to experience this feeling? While these may intertwine, is one of them stronger than the other?

Kythia

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 28, 2014, 01:22:08 PM
And you would be amazed at what some people will donate. Trash bags full of panties (really? Toss that shit in the trash.),

Yeah, this is what I was getting at.  Presumably the person who brought them in (instead of just selling them to creepy weirdos in Japan like I do) thought she was helping.  In fact, she was just creating more work.
242037

Valthazar

For me, it's just in my nature, makes me feel happy to be charitable to those in real need.  More than the empirical benefit itself, it is the intention to even help that means a lot to the recipients.

I donate winter clothes to the Salvation Army, and volunteer my time for a couple of local organizations.

For those in real need, knowing that other people care is far more important than what the charitable donation is.

Kythia

Quote from: ValthazarElite on January 28, 2014, 01:53:57 PM
For those in real need, knowing that other people care is far more important than what the charitable donation is.

I'd question that.  If I'm starving to death, what I want is food.  Whether you care or not comes a very distant second place to whether you're giving me food or not.
242037

Torterrable

Quote from: Kythia on January 28, 2014, 01:56:03 PM
I'd question that.  If I'm starving to death, what I want is food.  Whether you care or not comes a very distant second place to whether you're giving me food or not.

I agree with Kythia to an extent, depending on the need. Knowing other people care is great and might be the kick in the ass that I need to get my life on track, but thoughts only go so far. Thoughts are beautiful, but they do not replace material goods.

Valthazar

Quote from: Kythia on January 28, 2014, 01:56:03 PM
I'd question that.  If I'm starving to death, what I want is food.  Whether you care or not comes a very distant second place to whether you're giving me food or not.

I know, which is why I said it is not a competition.  There's no requirement to donate.  Any donation is better than no donation.  While many charities do permit the recipients to show 'wish lists' for what they would like, there is no empirical requirement that can officially mandate what a donor gives, since that's the inherent nature of voluntary charitable donations.

Moondazed

Quote from: mia h on January 28, 2014, 12:24:40 PM
Or "Do as you would be done by" also known as the Golden Rule, taken right out of that there Bible.

That sentiment is a whole lot older than the Bible. :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Kythia

Quote from: Moondazed on January 28, 2014, 02:54:35 PM
That sentiment is a whole lot older than the Bible. :)

While that might be true, actually the earliest we have actual evidence for is in fact the Bible.  Leviticus 19:18 is the earliest written version.  Sure, other civilizations may have had it but they either didn't write it down or if they did we haven't found it, and other cultures have since found it independently.  But the earliest we can say with any certainty is the Bible.
242037

Torterrable

Honestly? The idea of "do as your done by", in my opinion, is parallel with the idea of "an eye for an eye", which has roots in Hammurabi's first legal code, from the very cradle of civilization.

But that's not always a viable connection.

Moondazed

Wikipedia's entry on the Golden Rule has copious footnotes that say otherwise, unless you're speaking of that exact wording.  Sorry, it's simply not true that the Bible is the first place that sentiment (which is the word I used on purpose) appeared.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Oniya

No - not 'do as you're done by'.  That implies that if someone is nasty to you, you should be nasty back (or 'an eye for an eye').  'Do as you would be done by' implies 'If I'm nice to others, they will hopefully be nice to me.  But if I'm nasty to others, they might be nasty back.'
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Kythia

Quote from: Torterrable on January 28, 2014, 03:28:57 PM
Honestly? The idea of "do as your done by", in my opinion, is parallel with the idea of "an eye for an eye", which has roots in Hammurabi's first legal code, from the very cradle of civilization.

But that's not always a viable connection.

Don't forget Hammurabi's legal code is only a couple of centuries older than the Bible. The Bible (or pieces thereof) is one of the oldest pieces of writing known to man and is specifically about morality.  I don't see why its so unbelievable that it was the first recorded instance of the precept.  But meh, none of that really matters I guess.

Quote from: Oniya on January 28, 2014, 03:32:25 PM
No - not 'do as you're done by'.  That implies that if someone is nasty to you, you should be nasty back (or 'an eye for an eye').  'Do as you would be done by' implies 'If I'm nice to others, they will hopefully be nice to me.  But if I'm nasty to others, they might be nasty back.'

Ninja'd
242037

Moondazed

Quote from: Kythia on January 28, 2014, 03:33:41 PM
Don't forget Hammurabi's legal code is only a couple of centuries older than the Bible. The Bible (or pieces thereof) is one of the oldest pieces of writing known to man and is specifically about morality.  I don't see why its so unbelievable that it was the first recorded instance of the precept.  But meh, none of that really matters I guess.

It's not about whether or not it's unbelievable, it's that it's simply not true.  I like to deal in facts.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Torterrable

I'm not really against the Bible being the first recording note of that saying; the Bible, especially the Ten Commandments, has a mostly good moral code to follow, with a few sections that one should mentally update to keep up with the times.

But, beyond that, I was trying to emphasize that the idea of being able to exert a force on the world and other people and receiving a similar response is a very basic and inherent piece of human reasoning. Keeping this in mind, would it be a stretch to say that, when we first think of charity or doing charitable deeds, one of the quickest things to pop into mind is "how will doing this affect me?"

Also, you're* My bad for making a simple mistake.

Oniya

With a sentiment that has such positive implications, does it matter who put it on paper (papyrus, stone tablet, cave drawing) first?
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Kythia

Quote from: Moondazed on January 28, 2014, 03:35:27 PM
It's not about whether or not it's unbelievable, it's that it's simply not true.  I like to deal in facts.

Shrug.  Affects me not.  Wikipedia agrees with me:

QuoteLeviticus 19:18 represents but one of several versions of the Golden Rule. It is seemingly the oldest written version in a positive form.[9]

so I think your beef might well be with:
Plaut, Gunther. The Torah - A Modern Commentary, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, New York 1981; pp.892. ISBN 0-8074-0055-6

but this is getting woefully off topic for what I thought would be a throwaway comment.
242037

Torterrable

Quote from: Oniya on January 28, 2014, 03:39:55 PM
With a sentiment that has such positive implications, does it matter who put it on paper (papyrus, stone tablet, cave drawing) first?

Positive implications, perhaps, but notice it implies that you do what you want to be done to you. In doing charity, if you are doing it with the mindset of what you want to happen to yourself, are you really doing it simply out of the goodness of your heart? To me, there is an ulterior motive placed straight in the wording of the quotation.

Oniya

It also doesn't factor in masochism.  (Just kidding.)

Perhaps Douglas Adams phrased it better with 'How great it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change.'
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Moondazed

Perhaps it's time for me to just bow out of the conversation.  The line you quoted says, "it is seemingly the oldest written version in a positive form", which does not equate to:

Quote from: Kythia on January 28, 2014, 03:15:33 PM
While that might be true, actually the earliest we have actual evidence for is in fact the Bible.  Leviticus 19:18 is the earliest written version.  Sure, other civilizations may have had it but they either didn't write it down or if they did we haven't found it, and other cultures have since found it independently.  But the earliest we can say with any certainty is the Bible.

I have nothing against the Bible, it just bothers me when things are stated as facts when they aren't.

Quote from: Torterrable on January 28, 2014, 03:49:15 PM
Positive implications, perhaps, but notice it implies that you do what you want to be done to you. In doing charity, if you are doing it with the mindset of what you want to happen to yourself, are you really doing it simply out of the goodness of your heart? To me, there is an ulterior motive placed straight in the wording of the quotation.

Is your point that you're trying to define the human mindset and don't believe that humans do things altruistically, there's always a self-centered ulterior motive?
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Torterrable

Yes, I think. Through the wording of this old and hypothetically very ingrained-in-the-human-psyche quote, I am trying to prove that almost all altruism is due to an ulterior motive.

Kythia

There's no need to bow out per se, Moondazed.  I'm happy to agree to disagree or to talk via PM, I'm just wary of the unexpected amount of offtopicitude that comment created.

Back to the ontopicitude, yeah I totally agree with you Torterrable.  Further, while Oniya's point about masochism was a joke it does lead to the other problem.  If you and your child are starving to death, do you prefer the last piece of bread goes to you or your child?  No need to answer, that's not quite my point.  Just that different people want "what other people do to them" to be different things.  A better phrasing would be "do unto others as they want you to do unto them"
242037

gaggedLouise

#35
Anyway, the Torah is probably the first book or code to set up the precept "Love the stranger among you, for you were once strangers in another land yourselves" (Deuteronomy, I think - can't find the exact locus right now). That one is a very strong and...productive way of formulating that humans should care for each other, as humans, and that barriers are not always meant to be kept up at all costs (even if we'd emend "love" to "care for, include in your circle, and treat with fairness")

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

mia h

Well bringing up the Golden Rule thing was my fault I should put it in it's proper context
Quote from: John Stuart Mills
In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.

I do see Oniya's point what if you are self-loathing, masochist?
The whole point of Mills' quote is to look at any situation from the other person's point of view and ask if you were in their position what would you want to happen? But it works both ways: On a street there is a starving man and a man with a loaf of bread. The man with the loaf of bread should see that starving man would like to eat; and starving man should realize that the hapless guy who was just out for a walk with his loaf doesn't want embarrassing and hectoring into handing over the loaf. But that's where the 'love your neighbour' comes in if I care enough about myself to make sure I have food and shelter then I should want the same for everyone else.
But Mills does end up in what seems a very odd postion that the best way to help other people is to help yourself and then pull everyone else along with you. If that pulling along takes the form of charity, then does it really to be completely altruistic?
If found acting like an idiot, apply Gibbs-slap to reboot system.

alextaylor

Quote from: Torterrable on January 28, 2014, 01:42:51 PM
In being charitable, is it necessary that you understand to what goal your charity is going towards? From what I've seen, many of your volunteer works (not to belittle them; I admire each and every one of you for what you do to help people) seem to aid, for a lack of better words, a "faceless mass". However, what if we gave them faces, but not necessarily the faces that you expect? What if that man who took your coat is using it to hide a gun to rob people? What if the person you just fed is going to go home and buy drugs? If you knew this were happening to each and every one of the people you helped (an impossibility, of course, but please bear with me), would you still volunteer at the soup kitchen or donate clothes? If another opportunity to help people that required more commitment appeared, such as working at a rehabilitation clinic, would you take it?

Additionally, consider marginal benefits in taking on more volunteers. New volunteers require training and overseeing to become effective and, no matter how big the volunteer group, at a certain point, the clashing of various people will end up causing a loss in production. With this knowledge in mind, some people still attempt to join one of these groups, even when others are available (this happens with a tutoring group on campus for me). Do you think these people still have genuine charity in mind, or are they more looking for something to make them feel better, to improve themselves, even if there is a cost to others?

Finally, when you go in to volunteer or donate, do you feel good? Do you consider that good feeling a side effect of volunteering, or do you volunteer to experience this feeling? While these may intertwine, is one of them stronger than the other?

I don't really think people donate to completely faceless masses. It has some kind of face. We normally give charity to those closer to us. Like I'd be more likely to donate to Somalia, Pakistan, Palestine or other Asians compared to say, the US Red Cross.

I know plenty of people who donate out of guilt. I'm quite strongly against donating to street beggars, because I see a lot of beggars smoking. A lot of people know this and still do so anyway. I think it's just better to invite the beggar for a meal if you're at a restaurant or something, and actually know where the money is going. One time I was out with a group of friends and we actually did this with a young beggar boy. The boy looked terrified at getting a free meal and kept looking over his back as if someone was expecting him.

On the other hand, I've often given fries or a side dish I don't like to homeless people on the side of the road. They were extremely grateful and thankful. By some philosophical views, I'm not really doing a good deed by getting rid of something I don't want. But the way they thanked me made me know that I actually made an impact that day.

A lot of the charities in my area have absolutely no problem with volunteers. But they're always lacking in money or other resources. I've actually asked to volunteer for one charity, and they said that they had more than enough. If you want to focus on making a difference in the world, I think the millionaire philantropist is the best route.

Charity is actually quite a bit difficult. The people who ask for it often get plenty and don't need it. The people who need it are often quite strong willed. I know a lot of poor people who get insulted if you offer them help, especially certain married men, who think it's ultimately a failure in life if he can't feed his family.

So, you'd still have to do some research on which ones to donate to.
O/O

Valthazar

Quote from: alextaylor on January 28, 2014, 10:49:28 PM
I don't really think people donate to completely faceless masses. It has some kind of face. We normally give charity to those closer to us. Like I'd be more likely to donate to Somalia, Pakistan, Palestine or other Asians compared to say, the US Red Cross.

I think it's unfortunate that so many people donate money to other countries, when right in our own backyard here in the US, there are people without running water living in shanty huts.  I can show you entire towns just a few hundred miles away from me, such as in West Virginia, where people are living in 3rd world conditions, and many Americans are oblivious to this.

alextaylor

That's my point :P

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. I know plenty of Americans who do give to the Red Cross, but I normally say "no thanks" because there's a little less empathy there. Though the conversion rate has much to do with it... a dollar can go so much further in Somalia than it would in the USA.
O/O

Iniquitous

Quote”…. I am trying to prove that almost all altruism is due to an ulterior motive.“

I admit I find that offensive. The things I do for others to help them is not from any form of ulterior motive. I want nothing in return, I expect nothing in return. I do it because I feel it is my duty as a decent human being to help others.

With that said, I also understand the fundamental truth that life is an echo. What you send out does come back to you - both good and bad. But I do not define my actions based on this fact. If I did then I would surely have far less instances of treating others in unbecoming ways.

Quote”….. I’m quite strongly against donating to street beggars, because I see a lot of beggars smoking. A lot of people know this and still do so anyway..”

Point blank here… I try not to judge people. My responsibility to my fellow man is to help them, not judge them or try to dictate to them. They are old enough to decide what is more important to them - food, alcohol, smokes. If I have cash on me, I will give it to them.

I have been lectured more times than I can count about giving street beggars money and my response is always the same. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover. You do not know for a fact they are going to spend the money on smokes or alcohol. Ever cross your mind that they may be smoking cigarettes they picked out of public ashtrays? Or from the side of the road or sidewalks?

Quote”…. Like I’d be more likely to donate to Somalia, Pakistan, Palestine or other Asians compared to say, the US Red Cross.”

Quote”I think it is unfortunate that so many people donate money to other countries, when right in our own backyard here in the US, there are people without running water living in shanty huts.”

I cannot +1 Valthazar’s post enough. It is one of my greatest gripes (along with the whole ‘why the hell are you adopting from another country when there are so many children needing loving homes in the US?!’ gripe) simply because people ignore the starving here in the states. They ignore the homeless here in the states. They ignore those living in conditions that rival 3rd world countries. They simply turn a blind eye to it… or even worse… make the demeaning comments about the people being too lazy or too entitled to work. It irritates the shit out of me because I am a firm believer in taking care of your own before trying to take care of everyone else.

Yes, I have donated to other countries on occasion. But the exception has always been after a tragedy (the tsunami, the earthquake in Japan, this last storm that hit the Philippines). Humanitarian aide to another country is all fine and good - but being that I live in the US, I believe that I should be helping those that are here.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


alextaylor

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 29, 2014, 01:07:22 AM
Point blank here… I try not to judge people. My responsibility to my fellow man is to help them, not judge them or try to dictate to them. They are old enough to decide what is more important to them - food, alcohol, smokes. If I have cash on me, I will give it to them.

I have been lectured more times than I can count about giving street beggars money and my response is always the same. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover. You do not know for a fact they are going to spend the money on smokes or alcohol. Ever cross your mind that they may be smoking cigarettes they picked out of public ashtrays? Or from the side of the road or sidewalks?

It depends on the situation, but I think it's fair to judge the book by the cover in some cases. Very often when I sit with a group of friends, I see an unkempt person asking for money.. nobody in my group actually believes a word of his story. Almost always, someone offers the bare minimum required to shoo him away.

I don't mind if the money was given to sincerely help the beggar, but in so many cases, it's given as a "don't bother me while I'm eating" fee. My mother used to love helping them until one replied "What, just $5? You drive a car like that and you can't give me $20?"

I live in a state where there is almost no poverty or homelessness. Welfare does a very good job of taking care of them, what with free healthcare and housing. Jobs are abundant, and minimum wage jobs pay almost the same as fresh graduate jobs. The jobless are often handicapped people, yet handicaps get a lot of money from welfare. Welfare pays about the same rate as a college diploma. Someone born penniless can apply for interest free loans to go to a university or start a small business and the loans give enough money for food. Often those loans are so excessive that the poor hold more money than the middle class. Most con artists on the streets often ask for money for religious institutions. Anyone else begging for money on the streets almost certainly wasted theirs or lost everything in a poorly thought out gamble.

I don't have unlimited funds to help people with. I find it almost always more impactful to give it to a group of people who need it. The charity organizations do a great job of filtering groups of people who actually need help and making use of economy of scale to squeeze the most of out of that money. The results might be less visible, but they have a lot more impact, and the ones I donate to actually mail me a report of what they've been up to.
O/O

lilhobbit37

So from what you are saying you feel you have more in common with strangers from another country you have never been to than people in your own country simply because the color of their skin is the same as yours? Or just not white? (Since you mentioned both Asia and Africa I'm assuming the criteria isn't Asian but rather nonwhite)

Also just because your area may appear well off does not mean there are no starving, no homeless, no needy. I find it hard to believe that every beggar you have seen is not actually in need. Are there those that con? Yes. But I think people jump to that conclusion very fast to feel better about not helping them.

In that sense, it isn't a faceless mass and you don't like the face you see.

Moondazed

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 29, 2014, 01:07:22 AM
Point blank here… I try not to judge people. My responsibility to my fellow man is to help them, not judge them or try to dictate to them. They are old enough to decide what is more important to them - food, alcohol, smokes. If I have cash on me, I will give it to them.

I have been lectured more times than I can count about giving street beggars money and my response is always the same. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover. You do not know for a fact they are going to spend the money on smokes or alcohol. Ever cross your mind that they may be smoking cigarettes they picked out of public ashtrays? Or from the side of the road or sidewalks?

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.

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.

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 29, 2014, 01:07:22 AMI cannot +1 Valthazar’s post enough. It is one of my greatest gripes (along with the whole ‘why the hell are you adopting from another country when there are so many children needing loving homes in the US?!’ gripe) simply because people ignore the starving here in the states. They ignore the homeless here in the states. They ignore those living in conditions that rival 3rd world countries. They simply turn a blind eye to it… or even worse… make the demeaning comments about the people being too lazy or too entitled to work. It irritates the shit out of me because I am a firm believer in taking care of your own before trying to take care of everyone else.

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.[/quote]

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 29, 2014, 01:07:22 AMYes, I have donated to other countries on occasion. But the exception has always been after a tragedy (the tsunami, the earthquake in Japan, his last storm that hit the Philippines). Humanitarian aide to another country is all fine and good - but being that I live in the US, I believe that I should be helping those that are here.

I've always struggled with this one.  I want to help people, I really do, but it feels selfish to say that I'll only help people who fit into the Us in the Us vs. Them paradigm.  My son and I have had some fascinating discussions about things like this and foreign aid and what actually helps people as opposed to just throwing money at them.  I wish I had a solid opinion in one direction or the other.  I think the first step is revealing the true conditions that some Americans live in, no matter how much a large percentage of Americans want to ignore them and pretend that they can just 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps'.  Once you put a human face on that theory and actually look into it deeper than idealism, you discover that while that's true of some people, it's definitely not true of all of them, or even most of them.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Moondazed

Quote from: alextaylor on January 29, 2014, 06:22:48 AM
I live in a state where there is almost no poverty or homelessness. Welfare does a very good job of taking care of them, what with free healthcare and housing. Jobs are abundant, and minimum wage jobs pay almost the same as fresh graduate jobs. The jobless are often handicapped people, yet handicaps get a lot of money from welfare. Welfare pays about the same rate as a college diploma. Someone born penniless can apply for interest free loans to go to a university or start a small business and the loans give enough money for food. Often those loans are so excessive that the poor hold more money than the middle class. Most con artists on the streets often ask for money for religious institutions. Anyone else begging for money on the streets almost certainly wasted theirs or lost everything in a poorly thought out gamble.

Wow, what state do you live in???  I would love to see some actual data to back up your claims.  I'm not being a smartass, just to be clear.  There are no doubt people who try to game the system, there always are, but I think political interests have done a very good job of convincing people that most of the pennies are bad pennies, and I just haven't seen that played out in many of the people I've known who found themselves in need.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

alextaylor

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on January 29, 2014, 07:49:54 AM
So from what you are saying you feel you have more in common with strangers from another country you have never been to than people in your own country simply because the color of their skin is the same as yours? Or just not white? (Since you mentioned both Asia and Africa I'm assuming the criteria isn't Asian but rather nonwhite)

I'm saying that I have more in common with people who are culturally common. Like everyone above said, you help people in your own backyard first. Then other people's backyard. It's not so much a matter of skin color, but I feel it's my responsibility to be helping someone in my region (SE Asia/Australia/Middle East) first.

America has one of the highest per capita incomes and the most number of billionaires in the world. It's the duty of Americans to help America. Similar goes for Europe. Maybe Australia too but Australia is also a state with a very good welfare system.

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on January 29, 2014, 07:49:54 AM
But I think people jump to that conclusion very fast to feel better about not helping them.

In that sense, it isn't a faceless mass and you don't like the face you see.

You're right that I don't like the face I see. But it's more that it feels bad to help them, rather than feeling better about not helping them. Feed the starving, sure. But most of these beggars have the nerve to say "I don't want food. I want money."

There's also the issue that begging pays well:
http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx/?file=%2f2010%2f8%2f23%2fnation%2f6902765&sec=nation
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/14-beggars-from-china-nabbed-rm16000-seized/
http://www.demotix.com/news/2651439/syndicate-beggars-are-back-suburbs-bangsar-kuala-lumpur#media-2651454
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20100823-233367.html

Quote from: Moondazed on January 29, 2014, 08:10:25 AM
Wow, what state do you live in???  I would love to see some actual data to back up your claims.  I'm not being a smartass, just to be clear.  There are no doubt people who try to game the system, there always are, but I think political interests have done a very good job of convincing people that most of the pennies are bad pennies, and I just haven't seen that played out in many of the people I've known who found themselves in need.

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.
O/O


Torterrable

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?

Towards lilhobbit37: So do you think that providing a "blanket of charity" in order to help others is the best way to provide charity? Does it achieve charity's goal of actually helping the majority of people, even as it feeds some of their addictions? Or does the existence of this blanket merely provide people who want the benefits of helping others (good feeling, tax breaks, etc.) a way to reap those benefits?

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.

Torterrable

Towards alextaylor: You say that people have a responsibility to help those who are like them more than to those who are unlike them. Would this mean that you believe that people should take care of their own first? Does this imply an omnipresent self-interest in the idea of being charitable to others? As in, does the focus on helping those who are like you first as opposed to others who seem so far away imply that we are ultimately trying to be charitable (at least somewhat) to ourselves?

lilhobbit37

I don't understand what you mean by blanket of charity. I'm usually too poor to do much in the way of monatary donations, but I do what I can. I lived in my car before, and I gave my last dollar to a homeless shelter that was collecting donations even though I'd been told no shelters had space for me. Because at least I could hopefully help others get what they needed even if I didn't have it for myself at the time. I figured at least I had my car to protect me from the elements and that was more than some had.

My point if I have one is that donations and charity for me is about doing what I can to help others who are worse off than me. Yes some of them may be druggies or alcoholics but they are still just as likely to die from the cold as me or you. Who am I to decide they don't deserve a chance to change.

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.

Iniquitous

Quote from: Moondazed on January 29, 2014, 08:06:00 AM
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.

QuoteWhen 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.

QuoteHave 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
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Iniquitous

Quote from: Torterrable on January 29, 2014, 08:48:34 AM
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.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Moondazed

Quote from: alextaylor on January 29, 2014, 08:43:24 AM
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.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Valthazar

#53
Quote from: alextaylor on January 29, 2014, 01:06:08 AMThere 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

Quote from: Torterrable on January 29, 2014, 08:48:34 AM
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.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Moondazed

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on January 29, 2014, 09:02:13 AM
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.

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 29, 2014, 09:06:57 AM
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:

QuoteYes, 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.

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 29, 2014, 09:06:57 AMHave 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.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

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.

Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Valthazar

Quote from: Torterrable on January 29, 2014, 10:28:08 AMSo, 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

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 29, 2014, 10:35:23 AM
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.

Quote from: Moondazed on January 29, 2014, 08:06:00 AM
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.

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 29, 2014, 10:35:23 AMAs 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.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Valthazar

Quote from: Torterrable on January 29, 2014, 10:44:31 AMWhen 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.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


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. 
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

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.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Iniquitous

Quote from: Torterrable on January 29, 2014, 11:08:28 AM
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.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


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.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

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

Quote from: Torterrable on January 29, 2014, 11:23:13 AM
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.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Moondazed

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 29, 2014, 11:31:07 AM
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 :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

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

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on January 29, 2014, 11:36:06 AM
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

Quote from: Torterrable on January 29, 2014, 11:35:47 AM
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
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Torterrable

It's not that I don't want to believe the other way (after all, who wishes to be a pessimist?), but it's just the way I look at life.

I do charity too; I participate in a tutoring program at my school, participate in a soup kitchen and go to a cat shelter every week. The time commitment is minimal and I have fun doing it and helping people. But I myself feel like, through doing this, I have some sort of ulterior motive. I am not doing this out of the goodness of my heart...but why am I doing it?

There's something in psychology that says that people tend to base their outside psychological observations on their own experiences with their own psyche, and that's what I suppose I am doing with myself.

Moondazed

Are you trying to suss out why you gain pleasure out of doing something that doesn't directly benefit you?

I'm a big fan of self-awareness, by the way. :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Valthazar

Quote from: Torterrable on January 29, 2014, 11:56:49 AMI do charity too; I participate in a tutoring program at my school, participate in a soup kitchen and go to a cat shelter every week. The time commitment is minimal and I have fun doing it and helping people. But I myself feel like, through doing this, I have some sort of ulterior motive. I am not doing this out of the goodness of my heart...but why am I doing it?

It's normal to feel this way when you've only faced times that are good.  Once you face some really tragic and trying times in your life, and you receive gratitude and generosity from someone you never expected, your perspective will completely change.

Moondazed

Quote from: ValthazarElite on January 29, 2014, 12:01:27 PM
It's normal to feel this way when you've only faced times that are good.  Once you face some really tragic and trying times in your life, and you receive gratitude and generosity from someone you never expected, your perspective will completely change.

I couldn't agree more!  I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but that's very true.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Iniquitous

#79
Sadly, most people do not change their beliefs despite proof that their beliefs are wrong. Case in point - my parents. They steadfastly insist that the United States was founded upon the christian religion. I have laid out all evidence to the contrary before them, discussed each point and show them time and time again that their belief is inaccurate. They will not give it up, and to this day still insist that this country was founded upon the christian religion.

And when you get into the actual belief system a person has? Yeah, chances of changing that is next to nil because you can never prove without a shadow of a doubt that their religion is wrong. Nor should you even try to since religion is something that is deeply personal and not open to others trying to dictate what to believe.

I believe it was the movie Dogma that said it best though. "It is better to have an idea than a belief. People die for beliefs, no one dies for an idea."
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Torterrable

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 29, 2014, 12:26:36 PM
Sadly, most people do not change their beliefs despite proof that their beliefs are wrong. Case in point - my parents. They steadfastly insist that the United States was founded upon the christian religion. I have laid out all evidence to the contrary before them, discussed each point and show them time and time again that their belief is inaccurate. They will not give it up, and to this day still insist that this country was founded upon the christian religion.

And when you get into the actual belief system a person has? Yeah, chances of changing that is next to nil because you can never prove without a shadow of a doubt that their religion is wrong. Nor should you even try to since religion is something that is deeply personal and not open to others trying to dictate what to believe.

I believe it was the movie Dogma that said it best though. "It is better to have an idea than a belief. People die for beliefs, no one dies for an idea."

The Christian religion debate piques my interest, although that is off topic.

In a large part of debating hypothetical situations and human nature as we are now, there is no way to say that something is "right" or "wrong". As of now, I accept Moondazed and ValthazarElite's point that, because I lack experience with more aspects of the situation, my opinion is not as fully developed as I would like, and thus, my arguments, as of now, are not the most solid. This is a long way from saying that I am wrong; I accept now that I do not see the full picture, but I still think the argument I once held completely still has merit.

People change their beliefs when they realize they aren't seeing everything, in my experience. But "wrong" has such negative connotations...in trying to convince someone, never tell them that they are "wrong".

Moondazed

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 29, 2014, 12:26:36 PM
I believe it was the movie Dogma that said it best though. "It is better to have an idea than a belief. People die for beliefs, no one dies for an idea."

I loved that movie!  My almost 13-year-old son and I were just discussing things like faith and belief yesterday, and why it's so hard to talk about things like religion in a constructive fashion.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Iniquitous

Quote from: Torterrable on January 29, 2014, 12:40:42 PM

.... But "wrong" has such negative connotations...in trying to convince someone, never tell them that they are "wrong".

Ah, but see, if you tell me that all of my charitable work and giving is done for selfish reasons then I will, without a doubt, tell you that your belief in my reasonings is wrong.

Which is a prime example of your belief being wrong. And I am not one to pussyfoot around. I am very direct and that means that I'm not going to couch my meaning behind pretty words. If you are wrong, I'll tell you that you are wrong. If you do not like hearing the word, then you need to examine why I am telling you that you are wrong.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Torterrable

I never straight up said that your intentions for performing charity were completely selfish (if I did, I apologize; I don't remember it). I understand that most of charity is for benefiting other people, but is it not possible that there is self-interest embedded at the base of the reason that you perform charity? That was my argument. And as useful as introspection is in gaining opinions about the whole of the human race (e.g. I thought that others might have ulterior motives for being charitable because I felt like I have them), arguments and debate has, of course, proven it to be a miscalibrated instrument.

So I took your advice in attempting to see why you think I am wrong. From what you say here and from what I try to demonstrate above, it appears that my argument has been misinterpreted. This may be because you have misread it and chosen to focus on what appeals to you to argue against, or this may be because I worded my argument badly, which is partially proven by the fact that other people have seen what you see in my argument.

You think I am wrong. I may just be misguided, misguiding, or a combination of them both. There are ways to pad your argument to soften the blow and make your opponent more malleable to your suggestions; who knows? Maybe then, winning an argument and turning someone fully over to one opinion or the other is not out of the question.

DreamingWriter

Humans at their most basic are animals, and as such anything that we do is tinged by some form of self-interest. It's the way any and all animals act. It's a driven instinct deep in the primitive part of our brain that will never go away. Now it doesn't have to be some complicated philosophical and thought out reason. It could simply be "When I give to others, I feel warm on the inside." Which is a case for a lot of people, it my seem selfless in the fact that you expect nothing in return from anyone else. But you still get satisfaction of self. As humans with higher brain functions, that is more than enough to be willing to do something. But it still is a form of self-interest. If you gave to charity and felt nothing from it, no warm fuzziness inside of your chest, no feeling of self-worth that you could help someone else in need, then no one would do it. 

Valthazar

#85
Quote from: DreamingWriter on January 30, 2014, 05:31:43 AM
Humans at their most basic are animals, and as such anything that we do is tinged by some form of self-interest. ... It could simply be "When I give to others, I feel warm on the inside." Which is a case for a lot of people, it my seem selfless in the fact that you expect nothing in return from anyone else. But you still get satisfaction of self.

Like Torterrable, I think you are looking at this issue from a very linear perspective.

There are a lot of people who work full-time, and have to take care of aging parents who are stroke victims or who suffer from dementia.  Their children take care of them out of sincere love, and are by no means obligated to.  What warm-fuzzy sense of happiness comes from bathing and wiping someone who isn't even aware of their own existence, let alone that the person taking care of them is their own son or daughter?  I personally know someone in this position, and it is an agonizing ordeal, but she does it because she is one of the most empathetic people I know.  I know she isn't doing this out of a desire for "satisfaction of self," but because she feels a moral responsibility to do so.


DreamingWriter

And you are only looking at the example I listed rather than the base idea that was mentioned. I didn't say that it had to be some kind of warm fuzzy feeling, I only said that that was a common reason people help others, which is true. But every act of charity has it's own personal self-interest attached. Just because the example I used doesn't fit with every unique instance of charity, doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. Let me take your example this time. Why does she do it? It may not be because she feels that she has to, or that she feels good from doing it. There is another reason that people do acts of charity that is easily as common as the previous reason I listed. Why does she not? I would have to assume that since she loves these people, if she ignored them and their problems, she would feel guilt, and feel bad with herself that she didn't help. She the self interest would be that she does it in order to lesson the feeling of guilt and the bad feelings that would go along with not doing it.

Valthazar

I certainly understand where you are coming from, but I am not sure if it is best to take such a broad interpretation of the term, "self-interest."  There's a reason that certain acts are described as being "selfless" in nature.

Torterrable

Honestly? I agree somewhat with DreamingWriter in that there does exist a benefit for the doer of charity besides simply "out of the goodness of the heart", and that the benefit is, indeed, not receiving guilt. I have parents. I love them. I am definitely going to take care of them when they grow old, because I really love them and they have taken care of me; I would love to say that this is my one true intention.

However, loathe as I am to admit it, I also would take care of them because if they didn't, I would feel guilty. There is a question, now, of which one of my urges comes first, the carrot or the stick?

DreamingWriter

Quote from: ValthazarElite on January 30, 2014, 07:26:58 AM
I certainly understand where you are coming from, but I am not sure if it is best to take such a broad interpretation of the term, "self-interest."  There's a reason that certain acts are described as being "selfless" in nature.

[Nods] I understand completely. That's another thing that being human allows us. The ability to form our own opinion. I understand that from where I'm coming from, just the lessoning of guilt could be considered selfless in nature to some, and to others it is a form of interest for ones self. It all depends on your view of life and the world around you, which is why we have these debates, and unless there is a true fact to the mater being discussed, then there will always be differing views of life because of experiences some have had that others have not.

lilhobbit37

Except you could easily put said parents in a nursing home or hire someone to take care of them and feel fre of guilt. But thinking of how they would feel in this position you choose to put their needs before your own.

How is that self serving or self interest?

If it was about you, you would go the route of having someone else do the hard work so you could feel good about taking care of them with out the sweat and dirt and struggle that goes along with taking the burden on for yourself.

Kythia

Nursing homes and care staff aren't free.  That could simply not be an option for some people
242037

Torterrable

Another point I would like to make clear, as I feel that I have not conveyed this emphatically enough:

I am not saying that the only intention in doing charity is self-interest. I am not saying that all charity stems from pure greed. I am trying to say that most charity (almost all) has some sort of self-interest at its basis, whether this may be self-improvement, avoiding of guilt, or expectation of a karmic retaliation. I'm not trying to say that self-interest is the sole or even the most important factor in charity, just that it is one, and that no charity is just pure charity.

I am also trying to say that the self-interest aspect of charity comes before or at least at the same time as the purely "good" aspect.

Paladin101

For people who claim that those who help others or do charity are driven at some level by a desire for self gratification, well I can firstly say there was a psychologist who agreed with you. I can't recall his name but one of his key philosophies was that all actions are at heart driven by a selfish need for self gratification.

I disagree.

I have lived a life where I had not. I have lived a life where I was abused. I have lived a life of a number of hard times, and rough, crooked roads.

I now live a life, where my simple goal is to ensure that the life of everyone I meet, is a little bit brighter, and a little bit happier for having known me. I do for others, I help those I am able to help, and if I see a person in need, I step in and do what I can. I'm not doing this because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, I'm doing it because until my stepfather met my mother, there was no one in my life willing to step up and help my family out of our situation. There was no one there for us when we were being terrorized. So I make certain, that if there is a situation where I can step up to help another, or even give a friendly smile to brighten their day, I do so. Why? Because I know what it feels like when no one takes the time to help you, and I know how horrid and entrapping that sensation can be. And I know how good it feels, when someone steps in and notices that you need help, even just the acknowledgement of your plight can make you feel better, and I can spare that kind of effort to make another feel better.

Moondazed

Previously in this thread you stated that you believed that all charity comes from self-interest, so it's understandable to make the assumption that this last post wasn't what you were trying to say. :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Torterrable

If I said "comes from self-interest", I might have worded a bit strongly. Again, I emphasize that I hope to convey my belief that (I loathe absolutes) all of charity has an origin in some sort of self interest. I am now trying to emphasize my (perhaps new, after being convinced; not quite sure) belief that there is "goodness" in the urge to help others and make them happy, but with this, there is ALSO self-interest.

Moondazed

You could have a bright future as a philosopher :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Valthazar

Torterrable, I think we acknowledge your perspective, the disagreement is with regard to how broadly you are using the term 'self-interest.'

Iniquitous

Hm. Going to try and make a post before my morning coffee. Let’s hope this makes sense.

Let’s begin with this idea that all charity is done with a ‘self interest’. I can certainly see how this idea is believed. I do not understand it because I think it is a very callous belief that can be used as an excuse to not help others ….but I can see how some people believe it.

I do not do what I do out of a sense of obligation, moral or otherwise (donation of my very limited free time and money to soup kitchens, shelters, musical events set up for the purpose of raising money for the homeless, etc), nor do I  do what I do because it gives me warm, fuzzy feelings or relieves feelings of guilt (giving my very limited free time up to take care of my grandmother when my mother or one of my aunts cannot).

Donation of money has me fretting over my own budget (not a warm and fuzzy feeling there). Donation of time means less time for what I, as a human, need - less sleep, less relaxation time to unwind and mentally prepare myself for the next week of work (definitely not warm and fuzzy feelings there nor a sense of satisfaction or accomplishment when I am done). Donation of goods is a combination of both above - I spend money to buy clothes and food for donations as well as give time to make the trips not only to purchase but the trips to donate. Where I live there is no shelters, I have to go an hour north to turn in the donations at the shelter there. The closest church with a food bank is thirty minutes. That’s not only a lot of time on the road, that’s a lot of gas - which is money as well.

So - if I do not do this for the gratitude, the recognition, the sense of personal accomplishment, the absolution of guilt, the warm and fuzzy feelings or the sense of responsibility then why do I do it? What am I getting out of this that keeps me doing it? What ‘self interest’ is, as you two seem to think, driving me?

I certainly get no monetary value. I can tell you that the feelings I get when I go to the shelter downtown are more akin to fear for my personal safety/personal property than happy happy joy joy - the area is crime ridden and dangerous. It is a well known fact that the cops don’t even like to go into that area unless they absolutely have to. I give up sleep (it should be mentioned that I, on the whole, dearly love my sleep. About as much as I love my coffee) that I need - this tends to leave me feeling grouchy, not happy happy joy joy. I give up time for relaxing and mentally recuperating - this, without a doubt, leaves me temperamental, if not downright bristly when it comes to having to deal with stressful situations *also known as IO is being a bitch right now, tread softly or risk life and limb* Not warm and fuzzy there.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Torterrable

Thank you Moondazed! I...er...try. I'm somewhat flustered now.

ValthazarElite, thank you for acknowledging my perspective. Now, in an attempt to clarify my argument, I will define self-interest from my point of view. For me, self-interest is, vaguely, the controlled urge to feel good. When I say that there is self-interest in charity, I mean that, in performing charitable deeds, we expect some sort of goodness to return to us from it, such as a lessening of guilt or merely that warm feeling you get from being charitable.

Iniquitous Opheliac, in order to avoid incurring your wrath, I will retreat in a timely fashion from your current argument. For one thing, I have yet to think on it. I will return to your topic later. I do have one question, though; what do you think is driving you? After all, you do seem to be mercilessly punishing yourself by doing these charitable acts. Why do you think that you do them?

Moondazed

I wonder if the answer you seek is scientific, as in, "What part of the brain is firing when someone does something charitable?"  Trouble is, you won't find a single, concrete answer, and maybe that's the part that bothers you?  That there may not be a clear cut, definitive answer to this question?

I think it's important to understand one's motives, but I wonder why you feel the need to apply the label DOING IT OUT OF SELF-INTEREST to every single human being who performs a charitable act.  Have I mentioned before that it feels like you may be trying to avoid feeling bad about yourself because you do everything from a position of self-interest?  Please understand I'm not stating that as a fact, it's just a possible motive that I get from reading through this thread, for the position you're holding no matter what anyone says that has admittedly convinced you that you may be wrong.

It seems that your belief that beliefs are unchanging is at play. :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Iniquitous

Quote from: Torterrable on January 30, 2014, 10:05:39 AM
Iniquitous Opheliac, in order to avoid incurring your wrath, I will retreat in a timely fashion from your current argument. For one thing, I have yet to think on it. I will return to your topic later. I do have one question, though; what do you think is driving you? After all, you do seem to be mercilessly punishing yourself by doing these charitable acts. Why do you think that you do them?

Last post for me at this time. I have to go get coffee and then 'donate' money to the state so I can have up to date tags on my car (and thus be legal) as well as time since chances are good I'll be standing in line for awhile (end of the month, everyone who procrastinated now trying to get it done in a hurry.)

Ok!

I'm going to pounce on something you said because it reached out, smacked me in the face and made me blink. "....After all, you do seem to be mercilessly punishing yourself by doing these charitable acts."

First off, while I tend to lean towards masochism to a degree, that is reserved for the 'bedroom play' - so, no, I do not do what I do out of some desire for pain/discomfort. Let's get that out of the way right now.

Second, re-read that one sentence for me. I find it most telling about how you view acts of charity. To you, it is punishment. No one (except masochists and sadomasochists) likes punishment, and most people actively try to avoid punishment.

And that leads me to the question of whether you bring this debate up because you want to prove, come hell or high water, that all charity is done for selfish reasons or if you bring this debate up because you are of the belief that charity shouldn't be done at all.

Now, for why I do it.

You are my brother. Moondazed is my sister. Val is my brother. Kythia is my sister. We are, every single one of us, related. We are family. Why on earth would I not help my family if I have the time and money to do so? It isn't about me - it's about (we'll use the vague term here for simplicity sake) them. It's about making sure that my family has what they need to survive. It's about extending my hand to my family and helping them when they cannot help themselves.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Valthazar

Quote from: Torterrable on January 30, 2014, 10:05:39 AMValthazarElite, thank you for acknowledging my perspective. Now, in an attempt to clarify my argument, I will define self-interest from my point of view. For me, self-interest is, vaguely, the controlled urge to feel good. When I say that there is self-interest in charity, I mean that, in performing charitable deeds, we expect some sort of goodness to return to us from it, such as a lessening of guilt or merely that warm feeling you get from being charitable.

Like I have already said, I acknowledge your viewpoint, but I feel that your definition of 'self-interest' is far too broad.  According to you, it is an umbrella term that covers almost every human behavior, which is certainly very valid.  On the other than, I feel that given the existence of terms like 'selfless acts,' that your definition of self-interest is flawed. 

This is a fundamental difference of opinion, and one that cannot be debated, since there is no correct answer.

Torterrable

Moondazed: I am trying my utmost to give the implication that I am, indeed, malleable, and that I am, indeed willing to change my beliefs. I do understand that my lack of experience with charity is, admittedly, lacking, and thus I may be coming from a less educated viewpoint which is what causes my beliefs. I have, indeed, begun to change my beliefs, I would like to think; Inquitous Opheliac's story has somewhat changed my opinion. And it's not so much neuroscience as "What thought process (both conscious and unconscious) eventually leads us to perform charitable deeds?" I derive my opinion from my own thought process and what I see of yours, to an extent. That is why Inquitous Opheliac's story befuddled me and made me stop in my tracks; her thought process was inexplicable through my hypothesis of self interest, which is why it proved me wrong, or so I thought.

Inquitous Opheliac: Good luck with your date tags! Hopefully the line isn't terrifyingly long. And sorry about the "mercilessly punishing" statement; I tend to get melodramatic when I get invested in my arguments. I meant nothing insulting or ad hominem in any sense; you just completely screwed with my thought process. Personally, I love volunteering, especially tutoring kids; it's really fun, and I get a lot of satisfaction seeing them smile when they see me.

That being said, I think, for this argument to continue, we would have to further define the idea of "self-interest". If you see the world as your family (a beautiful viewpoint, I must admit), then there is a biological term that justifies being charitable. The biological premise (the name of which I forgot) is based around the fact that you want your own genes to spread, and thus you would be willing to sacrifice half of yourself to your brother, an eighth to a cousin, and so on. This is a very rough summary of the theory; I will have to look it up.

As much as I think this could support my own argument, as I go further down this road, I realize it doesn't. You see the whole of humanity as your "family", no? If this is true, your so-called "self-interest" in helping your family would be an interest in helping the whole of humanity continue in its existence on this earth. If the self-interested intent of your charity would be to help the whole of humanity itself, can it really be called self-interest?

To this, I have no response. I am stumped, and I have been..."changed", as one might say. Currently,  my mindset is that the "self-interest" that I previously attempted to define is actually...well, not "SELF-interest". I am wracking my brain trying to find some way to consolidate my previous mindset into this one, and it is difficult...so I have another question.

Is it possible that our intent to aid ourselves is somehow "combined" with our intent to help the whole of humanity? Do we cater to both our own selves and the greater good in performing charity?

Valthazar

Quote from: Torterrable on January 30, 2014, 10:38:55 AMIs it possible that our intent to aid ourselves is somehow "combined" with our intent to help the whole of humanity? Do we cater to both our own selves and the greater good in performing charity?

Perhaps for some, but I don't think you can paint broad strokes as to the underlying reasons.  For most of us, myself included, it's simply a matter of empathy, and not wanting to see others struggle.

I'm sure according to your broad definition of 'self-interest,' you could semantically view this as self-serving behavior.  But realistically, it's far from it.

Torterrable

Well, I suppose I am trying to find a "broad stroke" that helps define most of humanity, and by most of humanity I hope to encompass all of us here.

On the surface, it seems to me and you and everyone else, that charity is empathy, but could there be some deeper urge? Some thought process that functions biologically and deeply down in your mind that actually drives your urge to do charity? THAT is what I am trying to find, and I feel like I may have found something close to it.

Yes, I wish I could define or have a better word for self-interest. It's not quite self-serving. To me, semantically, it is less "evil" than greed and self-serving. It's the idea that you look out for things that benefit you, I suppose.

Valthazar

Quote from: Torterrable on January 30, 2014, 10:51:35 AMOn the surface, it seems to me and you and everyone else, that charity is empathy, but could there be some deeper urge? Some thought process that functions biologically and deeply down in your mind that actually drives your urge to do charity? THAT is what I am trying to find, and I feel like I may have found something close to it.

It's certainly an interesting thought, but before hypothesizing what the biological driver is, first ask if there is even any biological basis at all.  You'll find a lot of varying theories on altruistic behavior based on observable data, but very little in the way of concrete conclusions.  Many of these theories are heavily flawed by the author's own biases going into the study.

As a very extreme case to show how data regarding altruistic behavior can be heavily flawed, there are actually some academicians who attempt to use observable data to demonstrate that Caucasians are more altruistic as compared to other races.  Anyone with a rational mind can point out the flaws with this conclusion based on the available data.

My concern is that you are entering this discussion with a bias.

Beguile's Mistress

I don't think the reasons why people give to charity are all that important.  The giving is what counts.  People who want to give will give.  People who don't want to give will find many reasons to refuse to help others in need.  This does not include those who want to give but don't have the resources.

Torterrable

ValthazarElite: True, true. And, while I know it has been pointed out many times, could you help me identify my bias so I may be aware of it and attempt to make up for it? I am not trying to prove that a certain race, gender, or religion tends to be more altruistic; that would be nigh on impossible, as the definition of what altruism is depends on the culture one was raised in. I am trying to identify a basis for altruism, to search human nature to see why people are charitable.

My original bias was that I thought humans are inherently bad, I suppose. At the very least, they are not "good". However, through the argument, I have been convinced that people do, indeed perform good deeds for humanity without expecting anything in return, and this, by almost all definitions, would be considered good. Thus, humans are inherently "good". Can one be "good" and also be "greedy" (I wanted to use self-interest, but I have been overusing that without knowing what it means completely) at the same time? I am trying to see (not prove, mind you; I'm not sure if I believe in that or not) if that is true and/or possible.

Beguile's Mistress: Frankly? It's probably not important at all. However, it does help give insight into what people are, what makes them function, if we know why they act charitably. It  may be a small insight, and it may be an insignificant insight, but it is one nonetheless, and insights into human nature are almost always useful and important.

Valthazar

Quote from: Torterrable on January 30, 2014, 11:08:33 AM
ValthazarElite: True, true. And, while I know it has been pointed out many times, could you help me identify my bias so I may be aware of it and attempt to make up for it?

The bias was in the way you were approaching this issue from the beginning.  Based on your personal experiences, you found that there were times you were motivated to perform charitable acts due to self-serving intentions.  That is purely your personal experience (and perhaps several others), but there is nothing to suggest that this good vs. greed concept is an issue that all individuals performing charitable acts encounter.  However, you approached this issue from the beginning by using this personal motivator as the standard for seeking opinions from others.  Rather than evaluating this in a neutral manner by purely asking what motivates people to be charitable, and using these responses to develop further discussion, you were applying your own personal experience as the standard throughout the thread.

But I'm not criticizing you, there's just no way to not have a bias when it comes to these kinds of discussions.  That's just the nature of it.  I'm sure you gained some perspectives on the good vs. greed concept, but realize that it is an over-simplified understanding, that does not convey the full picture.

Paladin101

TOrterrable, your bias is that you are entering the discussion with your mind made up that there is a biological reason for altruistic actions. You are saying it is not a choice of empathy, it is not a decision to do a kind act for the sake of doing a kind act, you are saying all of these are not possible from the get go. You are entering this pursuit, already decided that there IS a biological reason for why people do nice things.

And, not to be insulting, but I find that mindset to be petty, and frankly very insulting.

I actually grew up with two men who are the embodiment of what you say is true of us all. Every action they took was self serving, and in some way benefitted them. It made them feel like they were helping others, made them feel like good men, when in reality they were the closest thing to true evil I have ever met in my life. One of these men would tie my mother to the foot of the bed to make certain she didn't go anywhere, or disturb him in the night. Yet he would go to church and give money, and help people, to make him feel like the great man he perceived himself to be.

Meanwhile there is my mother, who now is with a good man, and they have financial trouble. They had this christmas just barely reached the point of treading water in the financial issues they had, and barely managed to buy presents. Yet they went to the cafe, where they talked to the waitress that just moved to this area. They found out she was a single mom working two jobs with a 3 year old boy. And they learned she hadn't been able to really buy him anything for christmas. They went out, and hurt themselves financially to spend a couple hundred dollars on a kid they hadn't met, and bought toys, food, and snacks, so that this kid would have a good christmas. They didn't hurt themselves financially from a deep seated biological need to make themselves feel good. They did this action because they have both lived through hard times, they have both been abused, both been hurt, both lived through rough patches, and they saw someone who was having a hard time, and they wanted to help.

The perception that every action we take has a biological source removes the concept of the soul, of the spirit, of our inner desire to help others and do good. Of the CHOICE, and that is key to my life philosophy, the CHOICE to take action, and at expense to yourself aid another. In the secret service, there is one agent whose only job is if the president is attacked, he is supposed to jump in the path of the bullets. That is his ONLY job, not to find the shooter, not to push the president to safety, he is supposed to get in the way of that bullet and take it. How does that help him? What biological stimuli would override the urge to live? Sometimes we choose to do the right thing, we choose to live and act with honor, we choose a life of duty and service to others. Explaining it away as some simple biological impulse cheapens the sacrifice made by many, and makes light of those who seek to aid those around them. Are you saying that Mother Theresa was only such a good, helpful person because her biological impulse was greater than that of others?

Again, I am not trying to deride or insult you Torterrable, I just think perhaps your life experiences haven't exposed you to some things it seems like myself and others here have encountered, and which probably inspired our acts of charity to others.

Kythia

At the end of the day, Torr, I think it comes down to how you identify the group you are part of.  Utter selfishness is being in a group of one, perfect altruism is being in a group of 7 billion (or whatever the population of the world is).  Most sit somewhere in between.

The time IO uses to do her stuff is time she's not lazing in the bath, sleeping or whatever would be pure IO time.  The money Paladin's mother used was money she didn't spend on a luxury for herself.  These people have clearly chosen to value one act over another, and have decided that the benefit's of the action chosen outweigh the costs.  To me, part of that is an implicit acceptance that the person receiving the benefits is "one of us".  Otherwise there are, effectively, no benefits.  It would be like burning a pile of notes (bills) - money lost with no resulting return.  But by including the recipient in the "us" then there is a benefit to the group those people identify as part of.

I manage a team of volunteers at what is technically a charity, though probably not in the sense this thread is meant in.  A lot of them are older women, widows predominantly, who gain a lot from their volunteering.  Social interaction and a sense of being useful perhaps most of all. That's not as a result of me per se, nor my exquisite management skills.  It's just the nature of the beast.  However, I do think its a good model to bear in mind - that if something can be gained for the giver as well than that pile of benefits just grows: both the group and the individual gain.
242037

Torterrable

ValthazarElite: I suppose it is impossible to come into an argument without bias, just as it is impossible to make a truly sweeping statement about human nature. However, in over-simplifying this understanding, I am hoping to come up with something that I can think about and use to understand people better in the future. Almost all sweeping statements about human nature are generalizations; that is the nature of it. But those generalizations are what we use to know people. E.G If people feel hungry, they will eat. We can infer that this will be mostly true, but what if I like to exercise when I feel hungry? Maybe it kills the hunger so I don't feel hungry anymore. Even if I am this exception, we can apply this statement to most of mankind.

As for my own personal bias, yes, I admit, that is the way I came in because I had not explored the topic as fully as I have now. However, I would like to add that, although I did feel that I had some self-interest in performing charity, the great majority of it was because I did want to help others. It is nearly impossible to hear and see other's personal experiences and know what they mean to do by presenting that experience; one tends to target and focus too specifically on certain parts without taking the whole picture in mind. That is just the nature of the beast.

Paladin101: I take no insult from what you have said. I would, however, like to correct your inference about me; I have simplified my edited hypothesis into biological terms so that I may have a better way to explain it. Originally, biology did not come up at all. For one thing, the predisposition that I thought biological actions were the basis of all humanity did not arrive until fairly recently in the argument, and I use the "half of my body for my brother" as an example of how I think the thought process of altruism might work.

You may think its petty and insulting, but I think that humans are biological machines as well as social animals. You focus on the social part, I tend to believe the biological part is more applicable for the true background of human nature. That being said, I do not mean to discount the social side of it. I have already admitted, multiple times, that I do indeed lack the experiences to be completely well read on the subject. Nevertheless, I still attempt my foray into it because I want to know, even without these experiences. Would it not be preferable for all of us to learn without having to experience? For us just to know?

Your concept of "soul" is a completely different and hard for me to comprehend idea. Again, the biological stimuli that you so hate is just an oversimplified example to explain a thought process that is much more complicated. The vague feeling of this thought process (as I do not quite know it yet) seems to be "I love humanity, and want it to live and continue in a good way". This feeling originates because we consider humanity to be family, and we want it to continue "us", which would also mean continuing "me". Did that make sense? We do charity because we want humanity to continue and be happy. We want that because we want humanity to keep "ourselves" alive somehow.

I am also curious as to why you think being biological "cheapens" us. We are biological; when we are born and how we are made is a purely biological process. It is only recently, though, that we have begun to internalize that idea...but that is a whole different story.

Torterrable

Kythia: Interesting. The group-identification process is not something that I have contemplated before. In cases where we help people overseas and far away, or where we volunteer at cat shelters...where does that put us in the group-identification process?

The idea of multiplicative social and "humanity benefit" growth definitely seems to play a part in volunteering. I want to see how deep this idea goes, and why this idea comes up.

Great. I thought I had a general conclusion to this argument (for me, anyways), and then this comes up.

Beguile's Mistress

Quote from: Torterrable on January 30, 2014, 11:08:33 AM
Beguile's Mistress: Frankly? It's probably not important at all. However, it does help give insight into what people are, what makes them function, if we know why they act charitably. It  may be a small insight, and it may be an insignificant insight, but it is one nonetheless, and insights into human nature are almost always useful and important.
Actually, the reasons why people don't give, other than the fact they haven't the resources, would be of more interest to me.  A character like Ebenezer Scrooge is usually given more attention than one who donates all they have or devotes their lives to helping others.  In fact, more often than not we expect people to give. 

Most of the people I know who give just do it and don't talk about it.  Those who don't give usually spend a lot of time complaining about the poor, those on welfare and the dole and putting down anyone who needs assistance.  That has been my experience.

Torterrable

Beguile's Mistress: I suppose it might be that odd lack of talk about why people give. We have large backstories and tons of thought towards those who don't give, such as Ebenezer Scrooge.

I suppose it's just where our interests lie. Despite what I have said in the argument, I am a romantic optimist at heart; I am looking for why people do good, and hoping that it can be identified as good as well. Nevertheless, there is a whole obstacle course of "good" and "bad" to step through in this discussion, but, ultimately, I am trying to understand why people are good. The reasons? So I can understand good people better, and maybe, just maybe, convince the "bad" people that they can be good.

A discussion about why people are bad and greedy would definitely be interesting, though, although I cannot begin it here as that would be off topic.

Oniya

Quote from: Paladin101 on January 30, 2014, 09:28:20 AM
For people who claim that those who help others or do charity are driven at some level by a desire for self gratification, well I can firstly say there was a psychologist who agreed with you. I can't recall his name but one of his key philosophies was that all actions are at heart driven by a selfish need for self gratification.

I think you're referring to Maslow's hierarchy of needs - which is still debated as a model for human motivation.  While a good portion of that pyramid is arguably 'selfish', the top layer (self-actualization) includes things like morality (It's the right thing to do), problem solving (What can be done to fix this?), acceptance of facts (Somebody's got to do it) and spontaneity (I just feel like doing it.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Valthazar

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on January 30, 2014, 12:02:06 PMMost of the people I know who give just do it and don't talk about it.  Those who don't give usually spend a lot of time complaining about the poor, those on welfare and the dole and putting down anyone who needs assistance.  That has been my experience.

To the contrary, and not to turn this into a political thread, but many political conservatives (the type who would normally lament about the extent of welfare and food stamps) donate heavily to their churches and local charities.  As we all know, many of them are devout Christians.  Their political views are a different issue regarding the role of government.

Moondazed

I wonder if the concept Paladin is talking about is akin to the 'humanity' factor, in the sense that it's very easy to dehumanize people if one gets too embroiled in their ideals.  I once had a discussion similar to this one with an economics student and any time I tried to discuss living, breathing people he dismissed it and said he didn't want to get that 'granular'.  Of course he didn't, because once you apply something like an over-arching economic tenet or accept an idealogy such as believing that humans are purely biological creatures, those pesky individual cases with the complexities of actual people can seriously get in the way! :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Torterrable

The idea, Moondazed, I think, would be that, despite all those pesky individual complexities, the end result is the same. Our biological programming and natural desires etc. etc. overrides our personalities, because in the end, we can all be statistics.

I am hungry. I am going to eat. I could, of course, totally mess with the overarching hypothesis that I eat when I'm hungry, but let's face it; that is, indeed, what I do, because I am a human and that is simply how I work.

Oniya

As do all organisms.  Failing to do so usually disagrees with you, sooner or later.  (Apologies to Charles Dodgson.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Kythia

And yet there are hunger strikers for various causes.  Parents give children their last piece of food.  Etc.  A grand overarching hungry=eat hypothesis is either incorrect or, as I suspect, so incomplete as to be basically useless.
242037

Moondazed

If only we were that simple and everything could be broken down to that level.  Fundamentally, I think we're very much influenced by our chemistry, but it's just not that simple.  There have surely been times in my life when I wished that wasn't the case, when I wanted to know exactly why my youngest son is on the Autism Spectrum, when I wanted to know exactly why someone did something stupid in the name of love, and breaking it down to, "this neurochemical fired that neuron", would have been incredibly comforting, but at some point I guess I decided not to pursue that line of thinking because I don't see enough empirical evidence to support it.

Have you seen David Eagleman's TEDTalk about being a Possibilian?  He's speaking of religion, but his theory applies to so much more than that, in my opinion.

http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxHouston-Dr-David-Eagleman
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Torterrable

Moondazed: I will attempt to watch that in the near future. Nothing is, of course, as simple as we wish it, but knowing the simple things helps us understand the more complex things better. Knowing addition helps us with multiplication, and so forth.

What I am trying to find here is some sort of behavioral truth, sort of like Piaget's stages of development. If we know this truth, we approximately know the process that our minds go through before we do charity, and, as such, we know ourselves, as human beings better. Admittedly, Piaget's stages have been proven in various ways and has more evidence and testing and such, but the general principle, I would like to think, is the same.

Iniquitous

Quote from: ValthazarElite on January 30, 2014, 12:12:15 PM
To the contrary, and not to turn this into a political thread, but many political conservatives (the type who would normally lament about the extent of welfare and food stamps) donate heavily to their churches and local charities.  As we all know, many of them are (what they perceive to be) devout Christians.  Their political views are a different issue regarding the role of government.

There. Fixed that.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Valthazar

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 30, 2014, 01:44:58 PMThere. Fixed that.

I don't agree with many of the religious right's views either, but our interpretation of what a devout Christian is, is equally as valid as theirs.  The only point I was making is that they are certainly a very charitable bunch.

Torterrable

Another point I want to bring up now that charity is somewhat defined.

Would we consider those who donate money or time without the intention to actually help (or that their intention is mostly something besides helping) still charitable? Or are they not doing charity, but business?

If I donate money because I want to look good and reap tax benefits, but I don't really care where my money is going towards, am I still charitable, or am I merely "purchasing" the reputation and tax benefits?

There's more to this, of course; what about donating to a political campaign, if I believe that the political campaign is going to be good for the future of humanity?

Oniya

Not my particular Book, but since the topic was raised, I might throw a quote out:

'Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. ' (Matt 6:1-4)


In a more secular sense:  If you donate just to look good, it's going to probably show in other ways (like chucking money at charities but voting to cut unemployment benefits).  People notice this, and then they realize that you're chucking money around just to look good, but you really don't give a damn.  That respect that you've just tried to buy is probably not going to be delivered.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Paladin101

Quote from: Torterrable on January 30, 2014, 11:45:49 AM

Paladin101: I take no insult from what you have said. I would, however, like to correct your inference about me; I have simplified my edited hypothesis into biological terms so that I may have a better way to explain it. Originally, biology did not come up at all. For one thing, the predisposition that I thought biological actions were the basis of all humanity did not arrive until fairly recently in the argument, and I use the "half of my body for my brother" as an example of how I think the thought process of altruism might work.

You may think its petty and insulting, but I think that humans are biological machines as well as social animals. You focus on the social part, I tend to believe the biological part is more applicable for the true background of human nature. That being said, I do not mean to discount the social side of it. I have already admitted, multiple times, that I do indeed lack the experiences to be completely well read on the subject. Nevertheless, I still attempt my foray into it because I want to know, even without these experiences. Would it not be preferable for all of us to learn without having to experience? For us just to know?

Your concept of "soul" is a completely different and hard for me to comprehend idea. Again, the biological stimuli that you so hate is just an oversimplified example to explain a thought process that is much more complicated. The vague feeling of this thought process (as I do not quite know it yet) seems to be "I love humanity, and want it to live and continue in a good way". This feeling originates because we consider humanity to be family, and we want it to continue "us", which would also mean continuing "me". Did that make sense? We do charity because we want humanity to continue and be happy. We want that because we want humanity to keep "ourselves" alive somehow.

I am also curious as to why you think being biological "cheapens" us. We are biological; when we are born and how we are made is a purely biological process. It is only recently, though, that we have begun to internalize that idea...but that is a whole different story.

Why do I think your hypothesis cheapens humanity? Simple. Your stated belief is that all of our actions have a root in biology. That somehow, everything we do is the result of our genetics, instincts, or chemical reactions in our body. That is a very easy way to remove all responsibility. And to remove all sense of accomplishment.

Let me give you my example, from my life.

I was raised in an abusive household until my early teen years. By that time I was a hollow, shell of the person I was meant to be. I was convinced everyone was out to get me, afraid to speak to almost anyone, was convinced I was unable to perform basic tasks without someone else present to tell me how to go about them(for example, emptying a dishwasher. I was convinced unless I had someone there telling me where to put everything, that I couldn't do it, because I would make a mistake. Because in the past, my stepfather would stand there and tell me how to unload the dishwasher, and scold me for any misplaced item.) I was battling constant depression so bad, that my mother recognized the signs that I was thinking of suicide, and intervened to talk to me to let me know where my head was going.

At this point in my life, I made a choice. I CHOSE to correct my personality, I CHOSE to fix the flaws that had developed, and fill in this shell with the things I knew I should have. I forced myself into large social situations, forced myself to do things that terrified me, and made a concerted mental effort to battle my depression, isolate the things from my past that were haunting me, and get them out of my head. There are still scars on my psyche to be sure, but I am a self made man. I made an act of personal will to overcome my difficulties, to face my problems, and to forge myself into what I wanted to be in life. I can quite literally say that I am EXACTLY the man I want to be, because I worked hard to become who I am.

However, if I believed the beliefs you espouse, I didn't do a damn thing. What really happened was my instincts took over and made me do it. Or some chemical reaction evened out my mind and made me into what I am. It wasn't me, it was nature.

If I went out and stabbed someone with a butcher knife, by your belief I am not responsible. Nature made me do it, my instincts got confused or there was a chemical imbalance that made me go kill someone, it wasn't that I simply CHOSE to go murder someone.

That is why the beliefs you are choosing to believe disgust me. They remove all sense of personal choice, personal responsibility, and personal accomplishment. The mind is not a biological organism. The brain is, but not the mind and psychologists differentiate between the two for a reason. The mind is something we can't locate, we don't know what part of our brain holds our mind, only that it's there. We think, we decide, and as a result our biological bodies DO. But it is in our minds that the decisions are made, it is in our minds that choices are considered. We don't do something just because it makes us feel good, we do it because we choose to. Now yes, some people CHOOSE to do good things because they enjoy how that makes them feel, but you can't lump all people into a single group, and say we all do it because we are biologically rewarded, because some of us simply aren't wired that way mate.

Again, I am not trying to be insulting or offensive, I was just trying to answer your question to the best of my ability.

Torterrable

Paladin101: Can they not coexist, though? And I am not saying that, because we are governed by biology, that we are not responsible for the things we do. While biology and chemistry do play an inherent part of our actions, there still is the conscious choice of what we do. Biology, neurotransmitters and neurons, Pavlov's dog-type behavior, and the stages of development as defined by various psychiatrists govern the very basis of what we do. They lay the foundation, so to speak. Again, to use the hunger analogy: I am hungry, so I eat. This is biologically governed; I have no power over it, and it dictates what I do.

I am not saying, though, that my biologically based hunger tells me to eat people or to eat kittens. It tells me to eat. I will choose what I want to eat, and thus, I make a conscious decision, and if what I choose to eat has repercussions, it falls upon my conscious choice, not biology. In a way, I suppose, we agree; the way I worded my past arguments has probably made me unclear.

However, what I want to say is that, by establishing a truth or fact that can, possibly, be centered from and/or in biology, we can branch out, grow it into a sort of "choice tree", whereupon we can infer where certain "branches" will go based upon the person's character and past choices. Think of it as a sort of psychology, as reading people. For an example: I know you're hungry; I don't quite know what you're going to do, but based on everything else I've seen of you, I bet you will eat at Taco Bell.

Sure, there is a "will", a "soul", a "mind". They make the decisions that an underlying truth (notice I don't say biology, because, when saying underlying truth, I mean human nature and what we can infer of it) dictates them to do.

Valthazar

#130
I think what bothers us is the fact that emphasizing 'potential' biological tendencies achieves nothing productive.

People raise their kids with values - teaching them autonomy of thought, right vs. wrong.  What does it achieve to go around emphasizing the biological basis of our behavior?  If indeed your theoretical research somehow confirms this notion of greed in charitable acts, how should we respond to that realization?  Do we accept that we are greedy and remain complacent in our behavior?  I certainly won't, because I, and many others, try to live our lives to a higher standard.

Our bodies might have evolved to gravitate towards fatty foods and meat, but I am still going to strive to eat fruits and vegetables and exercise at my own volition.  I'm not going to be complacent and justify poor eating habits due to 'biological tendencies.'  We have minds that enable to us to rise above that.

Torterrable

I agree. Our biological functions dictate what we do, and everything we do is a result of a biological function, whether we attempt to move towards or against it. But I wasn't truly arguing for biological functions.

I was making a point that all we do is dictated by something higher. By discussing the purpose of charity, I was hoping to pinpoint that higher aspect of human nature that dictates why we are charitable. If this is identified, we can consciously rather than unconsciously nurture or quash it depending. If I realize that, at the true base of most human charity due to human nature is based upon greed and evil, then I will try to shove that greed aside whenever I do charitable works. If it is good, well then, I will be happy as I try to draw out that part of me as best I can, and hope it shines through.

But in order to know what to do, we must first identify what it is. You know that fats and oils are bad for you in excess, although your body tends to want them. As such, you can guide yourself towards what you want because you can identify what you don't. On the other hand, if you didn't know that, you might just keep eating whatever you wanted whenever you wanted, without stopping to ask why or justifying it. That, to me, is why it is good to know the origin of certain human actions.

lilhobbit37

But you are asking a question no scientist has yet been able to answer.

It is the classic nature vs. nurture struggle of how much is biology and how much is how you are raised aka the experiences of your life.

Scientists still can't pinpoint where one ends and the second begins.

So to expect an answer such as this and expect to truly find some answer to your biological impulse, neuron shooting, seems farfetched and overreaching.

DreamingWriter

Wow. a lot went on after I left. I feel left out now. I still don't quite understand how and why there are still two sides to this arguing of who is wrong. No one here is wrong, nor are their views on this matter. It simply comes down to how you view things. Those who view their acts as selfless, would be right, seeing as their idea and definition of self-interest is different than say mine and Tort's. For me, I would deign anything, even the fact of you wanting to do something, no matter the base value of such an action, an act of self-interest. Even say having to kill someone to save your son or daughter. Which is off topic on this particular argument, but it gives a general idea of what I view self-interest to be. You can't say I'm wrong, because the definition of self-interest isn't something that can be defined and narrowed down to something as limited as a dictionary definition. With that same thought, the people who give to charity and believe that it is not an act of self-interest are also right, because their view of what is and is not self-interest is different than mine.

Iniquitous

#134
Quote from: DreamingWriter on January 30, 2014, 10:50:15 PM
Wow. a lot went on after I left. I feel left out now. I still don't quite understand how and why there are still two sides to this arguing of who is wrong. No one here is wrong, nor are their views on this matter. It simply comes down to how you view things. Those who view their acts as selfless, would be right, seeing as their idea and definition of self-interest is different than say mine and Tort's. For me, I would deign anything, even the fact of you wanting to do something, no matter the base value of such an action, an act of self-interest. Even say having to kill someone to save your son or daughter. Which is off topic on this particular argument, but it gives a general idea of what I view self-interest to be. You can't say I'm wrong, because the definition of self-interest isn't something that can be defined and narrowed down to something as limited as a dictionary definition. With that same thought, the people who give to charity and believe that it is not an act of self-interest are also right, because their view of what is and is not self-interest is different than mine.

Errrr…

Self interest (noun): concern only for getting what you want or need and not about what happens to other people.

: your own interest or advantage.

Full definition of self-interest
1. A concern for one’s own advantage and well-being <acted out of self-interest and fear>
2. One’s own interest or advantage <self-interest requires that we be generous in foreign aid>

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-interest

Now, with that said….

You can say you have a different definition of self-interest, but then I would say you are using the wrong word for what it is you are trying to convey. That is the recognized definition above, it is what I think of when someone tells me I do charity for self-interest and I am pretty sure I am not the only one who gets the negative connotation.

And based upon the recognized definition - I can, and do, say you are wrong. I will not go back into the reasons I do what I do - you can read them again if you want, but I can say that there is no self-interest (again, using the recognized definition of the word) in what I do. I find it offensive that you continue to try to label it as such and then try to hide behind the ’well, I’m not wrong because I think the word means this…’ when people step up to say “whoa, wow. Not what I do.” It’s a cop out, and that is somewhat insulting as well.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


DreamingWriter

But even by using the full definition of self-interest I can say that you are indeed doing charitable work for that. With many things, people can take the words that are there, and have them mean something else. For example, definition two, "One's own interest" can be taken to mean many different things. You obviously take it to mean something different than I do, which is understandable. But that doesn't make me wrong. You obviously want to do what you do. If simply for no other reason than "I want to do this" If you truly didn't want to do something, then you wouldn't do it. I'm not saying that you don't want to do it because it hurts so you simply "Don't want to." I'm saying that if you truly, under every circumstance, don't want to do something. Then you won't do it. If you want to do it, for any kind of reason, then to me it is an act of your own interest.

Moondazed

FYI: It's rude and arrogant to try to force your views of things on others.  A much more thoughtful approach is to say, "Here's what it means to me.", then actually listen to the views of others with an open mind, instead of dismissing it out of hand by forcing your definitions on others.  Do you honestly think that you can speak for why someone else does something?
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Iniquitous

So, in your mind, it is alright to just up and change the definition of any word you want to fit what you feel is right.

Yeaaaah... okay. It doesn't work that way. Sure, you can apply your definitions to yourself, but the minute you try to apply them to someone else, like me, you are going to find yourself having to defend your words.

By the way - how is it in my own interest to do what I do? Since you seem to think you know my mind and my reasons so well, based on your definition of the words, please tell me. Quite frankly, what I do does not benefit ME in any way. There is nothing to what I do that is in MY own interest. Matter of fact, it would be in MY own interest to save my money to get a place of my own, to use my free time to work on my writing, to sleep more, to spend more time doing yoga and learning meditation. Those things are in MY own interest. They benefit ME.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Kythia

Quote from: Moondazed on January 30, 2014, 11:18:43 PM
FYI: It's rude and arrogant to try to force your views of things on others.

In an attempt to bring some levity to a getting-quite-serious discussion, that made me chuckle.  Don't get me wrong, moondazed, I know exactly what you meant by it and I'm neither criticising nor, in fact, disagreeing with you.  Just a funny thing to say if read literally.
242037

Moondazed

~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

DreamingWriter

Quote from: Moondazed on January 30, 2014, 11:18:43 PM
FYI: It's rude and arrogant to try to force your views of things on others.  A much more thoughtful approach is to say, "Here's what it means to me.", then actually listen to the views of others with an open mind, instead of dismissing it out of hand by forcing your definitions on others.  Do you honestly think that you can speak for why someone else does something?

If you are referring to me, I'm not. I have already said that both opinions are correct in my first post this evening. If you have read my first post, and still feel this way, I would like to know why so I can better understand your argument.

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 30, 2014, 11:21:04 PM
So, in your mind, it is alright to just up and change the definition of any word you want to fit what you feel is right.

Yeaaaah... okay. It doesn't work that way. Sure, you can apply your definitions to yourself, but the minute you try to apply them to someone else, like me, you are going to find yourself having to defend your words.

By the way - how is it in my own interest to do what I do? Since you seem to think you know my mind and my reasons so well, based on your definition of the words, please tell me. Quite frankly, what I do does not benefit ME in any way. There is nothing to what I do that is in MY own interest. Matter of fact, it would be in MY own interest to save my money to get a place of my own, to use my free time to work on my writing, to sleep more, to spend more time doing yoga and learning meditation. Those things are in MY own interest. They benefit ME.

I never changed the definition of a word. I simply used the definition you provided me to a different context than you did. The fact of the matter is that no words and no beliefs have a concrete definition that can be used and interpreted the same way each and every time. While you may in fact believe your work is selfless, I would believe that it is not. That does not make both of us wrong, just right for our own definitions of what something is. As I said before, if you believe your work is selfless then you are right. Just because I don't view it as such doesn't mean I'm telling you that you are wrong in your assumption.

Torterrable

I'm glad that this discussion is continuing, but, like Moondazed, I hope that people do their best to be careful not to misinterpret others and to merely emphasize and support their own opinions. Being misinterpreted is never a good thing. Try to keep opinions self-centered, yes? In fact, I would love to hear about more experiences that people have had with charity and what they felt. Examples are the things from whence we draw our conclusions.

Anyways, on this point, I support Inquitous Opheliac. She does not work for her self-interest because what I attempted to define as her "self-interest" is actually an interest in the benefit of humanity in general, which, at that point, can hardly be called self-interest, can it? I assume that there are more examples like hers, although perhaps not as easy to identify.

I originally assumed self-interest, but in saying self-interest, we must be careful to define it by identifying exactly what benefit to "self" it is targeting, and from there, we can judge it.

lilhobbit37: I did not mean to bring up the nature versus nurture argument, although I can see how it can be interpreted and drawn from my argument. Even though most scientists debate about which is more important, I believe that the majority of them agree as to which came first. Biology definitely develops first; genes and embryo and egg and sperm are the very basis from which life is formed. Nurture comes later as one is taken care of, although I suppose you could truly argue that it begins in the womb; still, the personality developing aspects of life come after the biological ones are already in full force.

I am not saying that nature is STRONGER than nurture (indeed, from my argument, I think you could probably infer the inverse; I state that biology can be overcome by our decisions once we are made aware of it), I am just saying it comes first.

Iniquitous

Quote from: DreamingWriter on January 30, 2014, 11:28:48 PM
If you are referring to me, I'm not. I have already said that both opinions are correct in my first post this evening. If you have read my first post, and still feel this way, I would like to know why so I can better understand your argument.

I never changed the definition of a word. I simply used the definition you provided me to a different context than you did. The fact of the matter is that no words and no beliefs have a concrete definition that can be used and interpreted the same way each and every time. While you may in fact believe your work is selfless, I would believe that it is not. That does not make both of us wrong, just right for our own definitions of what something is. As I said before, if you believe your work is selfless then you are right. Just because I don't view it as such doesn't mean I'm telling you that you are wrong in your assumption.

You are deflecting and ignoring the question put to you.

Please, tell me how my actions are done in self interest. It is your belief, so by all means, explain it and defend it. And yes, you are telling me I am wrong by saying that the reasons I do my charity is not actually why I do it because in YOUR mind I do it for some other reason that benefits me.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


DreamingWriter

I have already explained my position on the matter. I believe things are done because people want to do them. That is the basis of why people do anything. Some people will say to that "But I don't want to do it." Which I don't believe. The basis of anything that happens is a want for it. As simple as a want for survival, a want for safety. For some reason that only you know about, wither consciously or not, you want to do what you do. And for me, that is enough to place it in the category of self-interest. Your idea and definition of self-interest is not as broad as mine, and there is nothing wrong with that. I am not saying your wrong. Just that to me you aren't right. Everyone has the right to their own opinion and there are no concrete facts that can say with out a shadow of a doubt that either of us is right or wrong. We as a species do now have enough understanding of the human brain to prove such a thing. 

Moondazed

Quote from: DreamingWriter on January 30, 2014, 11:28:48 PM
If you are referring to me, I'm not. I have already said that both opinions are correct in my first post this evening. If you have read my first post, and still feel this way, I would like to know why so I can better understand your argument.

IO has explained her motives as fully as she possibly can, yet you pronounce that they're still done out of self interest because of the way you choose to define words.  Do you honestly think that it's ethical to define the motives of someone else?  That's what I find rude and arrogant.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Moondazed

Quote from: DreamingWriter on January 30, 2014, 11:38:37 PM
I have already explained my position on the matter. I believe things are done because people want to do them. That is the basis of why people do anything. Some people will say to that "But I don't want to do it." Which I don't believe. The basis of anything that happens is a want for it. As simple as a want for survival, a want for safety. For some reason that only you know about, wither consciously or not, you want to do what you do. And for me, that is enough to place it in the category of self-interest. Your idea and definition of self-interest is not as broad as mine, and there is nothing wrong with that. I am not saying your wrong. Just that to me you aren't right. Everyone has the right to their own opinion and there are no concrete facts that can say with out a shadow of a doubt that either of us is right or wrong. We as a species do now have enough understanding of the human brain to prove such a thing.

Oh my goodness, if you can't see the arrogance of this response then you truly don't understand how to engage in civil discourse.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Kythia

I do think, assuming I've read her correctly, that there is some benefit to DreamingWriter's position.

As I understand her, she is essentially equating "self-interest" with "ones own benefit", using definition 2 of the posted definition.  Which doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me.  She's then going on to say that if it were absolutely no benefit to a person then they would not do it.  If there were no gain at all to them.

I think what you're missing, though, DreamingWriter is that IO feels - and I'm putting words in your mouth here IO so please feel free to shout and correct me - that helping a generic "other person" has, to her, the same benefit as helping her (hypothetical) sister.  Torterrable has talked in terms of kinship bonds and that's almost it.  There are certain people - one's parents, ones siblings, me - that I think any rational human would do anything they could for.  IO, as I understand her point, draws that net wider than you, as I understand your point, do.
242037

Torterrable

To further Kythia's explanation (thank you, by the way, for that great summary), I would like to add that IO's extension of generosity to the whole of humanity makes her "self-interest" so widespread to the point that it doesn't seem like self-interest at all, and would be better defined as, simply, "charity" or "goodness". While this may have a tie-in with some sort of basis of wanting something to benefit the self, it is so hard to identify and so focused on helping the whole of humankind that it is difficult to see which is which. The idea of "charity" seems stronger to me, though.

DreamingWriter

Quote from: Moondazed on January 30, 2014, 11:39:11 PM
IO has explained her motives as fully as she possibly can, yet you pronounce that they're still done out of self interest because of the way you choose to define words.  Do you honestly think that it's ethical to define the motives of someone else?  That's what I find rude and arrogant.

As have I. I have said that she is right in thinking that what she does is selflessly. But just because something is right to her doesn't mean it has to be right to me. And I have stated that time and again. How I choose to define what people do and don't do in my own mind using my own beliefs can be done how ever I choose. I refuse to say that she is wrong, because she is not. I don't believe my words are rude or arrogant. My views are just different. I'm not telling her that she's wrong, nor am I telling her she has to see it my way. I'm just stating my belief.

Quote from: Kythia on January 30, 2014, 11:40:13 PM
I do think, assuming I've read her correctly, that there is some benefit to DreamingWriter's position.

As I understand her, she is essentially equating "self-interest" with "ones own benefit", using definition 2 of the posted definition.  Which doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me.  She's then going on to say that if it were absolutely no benefit to a person then they would not do it.  If there were no gain at all to them.

I think what you're missing, though, DreamingWriter is that IO feels - and I'm putting words in your mouth here IO so please feel free to shout and correct me - that helping a generic "other person" has, to her, the same benefit as helping her (hypothetical) sister.  Torterrable has talked in terms of kinship bonds and that's almost it.  There are certain people - one's parents, ones siblings, me - that I think any rational human would do anything they could for.  IO, as I understand her point, draws that net wider than you, as I understand your point, do.

It's not that I'm missing her point. I don't believe so anyway. I've already stated that she is correct, and I will not tell her she is wrong, because she is not. I'm simply stating that I don't view her opinion as right either. Just that we simply have different ways of interpreting the words which we are trying to use.

Iniquitous

Kythia, you pretty much have it right.

I view every person in this world to be related to me. You are all my brothers and sisters. All family to me. We are all related (not going to go into the whole biology aspect of this, it would take too long and it's too late at night for me).

And ....

Please, please, tell me what "I am not saying your wrong. Just that to me you aren't right." means. What else is there but right and wrong? If you are saying I am not right, then you are, indeed, saying I am wrong. The moment you tell me YOUR opinion of my being wrong, you are telling ME I am wrong.

I think you need to find a better way to explain yourself. You are talking yourself in circles, not answering direct questions placed to you and deflecting.

So, by your definitions here, you are wrong. You do not know why I do what I do. You do not even know me. Thus, you have no possible way of knowing what goes through my mind when I do the things I do. Just as you have no way of knowing why anyone else does the things they do. The only person you know is yourself, and in the interest of not causing strife, it would probably be better to not insult strangers by telling them they are wrong just because things don't fit your meanings.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Moondazed

In my opinion, what you're saying is, "It's my right to pass judgment and apply my own definitions and motives to anyone, no matter what they say."

Is that what you're trying to communicate?

I mean... how on earth can you relate to people in an empathetic manner if you're running everything through the filter of what you believe to be true of their meaning and motives?

Edit:  Forgive me for not quoting, that was directed at DW.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Kythia

Quote from: DreamingWriter on January 30, 2014, 11:45:33 PM
It's not that I'm missing her point. I don't believe so anyway. I've already stated that she is correct, and I will not tell her she is wrong, because she is not. I'm simply stating that I don't view her opinion as right either. Just that we simply have different ways of interpreting the words which we are trying to use.

Clearly I'm misunderstanding your point then.  I agree with you one hundred per cent that word usage is individual and idiosyncratic and relying on definitions unhelpful.  I also, albeit to a lesser extent, support you in holding a definition and understanding that makes sense to you.

Where you lose me is in my attempt to understand precisely what that definition is.  You believe that IO - I would, for the record, suggest we make up a hypothetical person rather than personalising this in the avatar of IO, but that's by the by - is acting in self-interest.  You've defined your terms of self-interest and as I say I personally have no issue with them.  I don't see, even using your terms, the self interest though.
242037

Moondazed

I used to be confrontational when I discussed things online without even realizing it, I thought I was just opinionated. :)  Studying Non-Violent Communication helped me to understand where I was forcing my beliefs on others by not recognizing and owning my own filters/biases, let alone truly listening to what others were trying to convey. 

http://www.cnvc.org/about/what-is-nvc.html

There's also a wealth of information about logical fallacies at https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=24136.0 :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Iniquitous

I would definitely agree to making up a hypothetical person for this because I am becoming downright offended at this point and trying very hard to not be.

Here is what I am understanding. My actions are done because I want to do them (this would be correct) and thus that makes them fall under self-interest to DW. Now, I do not see how that works in her mind because she has already said that the definition she is going by is "in one's own interest". Using the definition "in one's own interest" is not the same as "wanting to do it."

In one's own interest quite simply means that it is in MY interest - I get something that benefits me out of what I do. Now, I have asked, repeatedly, for DW to tell me what I get out of my charitable deeds, and she has deigned to ignore the request.

So let me answer my own question. I get nothing that benefits me out of my charitable deeds. I spend my own money, I put miles on my own car, I use my own gas, I use my own free time. I get nothing in return, I expect nothing in return.  I do not claim my charitable donations on my taxes. I do not proclaim my charitable deeds to everyone around me, so I do not get pats on the back or recognition for what I do. 
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Valthazar

My philosophy is more in line with IO, but both of you should realize that what you are discussing does not represent differing views of charity, but simply differing definitions of the word, 'self-interest.'

DW is using a very broad definition - that is justified on a theoretical level, while IO is using a more working definition - that is justified on an everyday, realistic level.

Empirically, both of you are correct in your views, which is why this discussion is not making much headway at this point.  I recommend focusing on the semantics of this word, if we want to progress this discussion, without repeating ourselves.

Torterrable

ValthazarElite brings up a brilliant point. The words "self-interest" have been used so much in this conversation with the meaning taken for granted that they do, indeed, seem meaningless now. It would be good to establish what self-interest is as compared to other terms such as greed, and at what point does self-interest cease to be self-interest, and starts becoming something else?

Moondazed

IO addressed the actual definition a few posts ago...

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 30, 2014, 11:02:38 PM
Self interest (noun): concern only for getting what you want or need and not about what happens to other people.

: your own interest or advantage.

Full definition of self-interest
1. A concern for one’s own advantage and well-being <acted out of self-interest and fear>
2. One’s own interest or advantage <self-interest requires that we be generous in foreign aid>

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-interest

Or are we all making up our own? :)
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

DreamingWriter

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on January 30, 2014, 11:50:39 PM
Kythia, you pretty much have it right.

I view every person in this world to be related to me. You are all my brothers and sisters. All family to me. We are all related (not going to go into the whole biology aspect of this, it would take too long and it's too late at night for me).

And ....

Please, please, tell me what "I am not saying your wrong. Just that to me you aren't right." means. What else is there but right and wrong? If you are saying I am not right, then you are, indeed, saying I am wrong. The moment you tell me YOUR opinion of my being wrong, you are telling ME I am wrong.

I think you need to find a better way to explain yourself. You are talking yourself in circles, not answering direct questions placed to you and deflecting.

So, by your definitions here, you are wrong. You do not know why I do what I do. You do not even know me. Thus, you have no possible way of knowing what goes through my mind when I do the things I do. Just as you have no way of knowing why anyone else does the things they do. The only person you know is yourself, and in the interest of not causing strife, it would probably be better to not insult strangers by telling them they are wrong just because things don't fit your meanings.

Just because something is not right, doesn't make it wrong. This again appears to be another matter that we have differing views on, to the point that I don't believe that continuing this discussion would have any merit or accomplish anything. I have answered every question you have given me to the extent that I feel them to be fully answered. I'm sorry you don't feel as if my answers have answered the questions you have directed at me but they are the only ones that I can give to express my opinion in the way that it can be expressed.

Quote from: Moondazed on January 30, 2014, 11:51:15 PM
In my opinion, what you're saying is, "It's my right to pass judgment and apply my own definitions and motives to anyone, no matter what they say."

Is that what you're trying to communicate?

I mean... how on earth can you relate to people in an empathetic manner if you're running everything through the filter of what you believe to be true of their meaning and motives?

Edit:  Forgive me for not quoting, that was directed at DW.

I never said I relate to people in an empathetic manner. I view people and humanity in a way most people don't and I have always known that. My words were in no way offensive nor were they meant to be. I'm sorry if they did offend anyone, but I would not change them. They are what I believe and that was the purpose of writing in this forum.

Quote from: Kythia on January 30, 2014, 11:59:34 PM
Clearly I'm misunderstanding your point then.  I agree with you one hundred per cent that word usage is individual and idiosyncratic and relying on definitions unhelpful.  I also, albeit to a lesser extent, support you in holding a definition and understanding that makes sense to you.

Where you lose me is in my attempt to understand precisely what that definition is.  You believe that IO - I would, for the record, suggest we make up a hypothetical person rather than personalising this in the avatar of IO, but that's by the by - is acting in self-interest.  You've defined your terms of self-interest and as I say I personally have no issue with them.  I don't see, even using your terms, the self interest though.

I'm simply stating that by using my terms, that anytime anyone does anything, it is in an act of self-interest.

Kythia

Quote from: DreamingWriter on January 31, 2014, 12:27:16 AM
I'm simply stating that by using my terms, that anytime anyone does anything, it is in an act of self-interest.

Well, I guess given that you're pretty much spot on then.  I would perhaps question if that's a "useful" definition to use- it seems to make a lot of other words redundant - but that's another issue entirely.

Fair enough.  Thanks for clearing that up
242037

Moondazed

Quote from: DreamingWriter on January 31, 2014, 12:27:16 AM
I never said I relate to people in an empathetic manner. I view people and humanity in a way most people don't and I have always known that. My words were in no way offensive nor were they meant to be. I'm sorry if they did offend anyone, but I would not change them. They are what I believe and that was the purpose of writing in this forum.

I don't know how old you are, but you've probably figured out that lack of empathy doesn't lead to connection with other people and is associated with numerous psychological disorders.  If it's a conscious choice you make I can't say I understand why you'd make that choice, but to each their own.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Valthazar

I was referring more to having a discussion on the interpretation of that definition itself.  For example, what constitutes "one's own advantage" within the context of a charitable act?

DW, while I can certainly understand why you are holding your perspective (due to your interpretation of this definition), I am struggling to see how you are expanding the interpretation of 'own advantage' so broadly to encompass selfless acts as well.  Better put, I am not sure such an expansive interpretation is even justified, considering that it would then seem to encompass almost ever human behavior - which hits on Kythia's point.

Perhaps your acknowledgement that you may not relate to people in an empathetic manner makes this more of a unique outlook to you, as an individual, rather than representative of the views of most others.

Iniquitous

At this point, I am bowing out. I am offended by DW's continued insistence that she is right and everyone else is wrong. Nor do I see any reason to continue the discussion with someone who cannot actually carry on a discussion, per her own words.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


DreamingWriter

Quote from: Kythia on January 31, 2014, 12:30:51 AM
Well, I guess given that you're pretty much spot on then.  I would perhaps question if that's a "useful" definition to use- it seems to make a lot of other words redundant - but that's another issue entirely.

Fair enough.  Thanks for clearing that up

I agree. But that's the simplest way to put it. Basically I see it as if someone is taking the time to do something, there's an act of self-interest involved. I realize that it's not the most useful definition nor one that many people like. But I'm sorry for confusing you at first.

Quote from: Moondazed on January 31, 2014, 12:32:44 AM
I don't know how old you are, but you've probably figured out that lack of empathy doesn't lead to connection with other people and is associated with numerous psychological disorders.  If it's a conscious choice you make I can't say I understand why you'd make that choice, but to each their own.

Just barely out of my teen years. I don't have many connections with other people on a personal level. It's just the way I live I suppose. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Quote from: ValthazarElite on January 31, 2014, 12:34:09 AM
I was referring more to having a discussion on the interpretation of that definition itself.  For example, what constitutes "one's own advantage" within the context of a charitable act?

DW, while I can certainly understand why you are holding your perspective (due to your interpretation of this definition), I am struggling to see how you are expanding the interpretation of 'own advantage' so broadly to encompass selfless acts as well.  Better put, I am not sure such an expansive interpretation is even justified, considering that it would then seem to encompass almost ever human behavior - which hits on Kythia's point.

Perhaps your acknowledgement that you may not relate to people in an empathetic manner makes this more of a unique outlook to you, as an individual, rather than representative of the views of most others.

I never said my view was right to others, nor that I represent everyone. Just that it's how I see it.

Torterrable

I agree with ValthazarElite in that, while there does exist a dictionary definition, with self-interest, as with heavily weighted words such as "love", there needs to be more focus on what the word might mean in certain contexts.

DreamingWriter, you are at the point that I have gotten to before in the argument. So you think that everything originates with self-interest, correct? Well, assuming (without a solid definition of self-interest, I must make ado with my sad one) that self interest means that one seeks benefits for one's own self, what benefits does one who does charity in a way that seemingly does not benefit him or herself (as he or she spends time, money, and effort and receives no recognition or breaks) reap? Where does the self-interest lead to there?

DreamingWriter

Quote from: Torterrable on January 31, 2014, 12:38:36 AM
I agree with ValthazarElite in that, while there does exist a dictionary definition, with self-interest, as with heavily weighted words such as "love", there needs to be more focus on what the word might mean in certain contexts.

DreamingWriter, you are at the point that I have gotten to before in the argument. So you think that everything originates with self-interest, correct? Well, assuming (without a solid definition of self-interest, I must make ado with my sad one) that self interest means that one seeks benefits for one's own self, what benefits does one who does charity in a way that seemingly does not benefit him or herself (as he or she spends time, money, and effort and receives no recognition or breaks) reap? Where does the self-interest lead to there?

I can't know. As I said before, no one will ever know exactly what benefit you that others get from what they do. We don't have enough deep seated understanding of the human brain for such an argument to be proved nor disproved. But I believe that at some level, everything anyone does, Either charity, going to work, getting up in the morning, is done for self-interest on some level. Even if it isn't a conscious level.

Valthazar

Quote from: DreamingWriter on January 31, 2014, 01:00:43 AMBut I believe that at some level, everything anyone does, Either charity, going to work, getting up in the morning, is done for self-interest on some level. Even if it isn't a conscious level.

I acknowledge this view point, but I am simply asking for you to substantiate a bit on it.  That's the premise of a discussion or debate, isn't it?

It appears that you view having a 'moral duty' for performing a selfless act, as an example of self-interest in and of itself.  My question to you is, why do you feel that this broad definition is justified?  What advantage do we get from describing it in this very academic, theoretical manner, when for all intents and purposes, our colloquial use of the word 'self-interest' is quite different.

DreamingWriter

Quote from: ValthazarElite on January 31, 2014, 01:07:16 AM
I acknowledge this view point, but I am simply asking for you to substantiate a bit on it.  That's the premise of a discussion or debate, isn't it?

It appears that you view having a 'moral duty' for performing a selfless act, as an example of self-interest in and of itself.  My question to you is, why do you feel that this broad definition is justified?  What advantage do we get from describing it in this very academic, theoretical manner, when for all intents and purposes, our colloquial use of the word 'self-interest' is quite different.

That is correct. I suppose it's the way I have always viewed it, and there is no way to prove that it is wrong, and I have seen no reason to change my belief, so it stands as it is.

Iniquitous

Against better judgment here...

DreamingWriter, I have the very distinct impression you are trolling. You are asked to substantiate, you do not. You are asked to answer questions, you do not. You are not discussing, you are seeking to get a rise out of someone. It would be nice if you could actually participate in the discussion instead of stubbornly insisting you are right and everyone else is wrong without actually contributing anything else.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


DreamingWriter

I am not. I have given my point of view on the subject multiple times. I've answered every question you have asked me. Point out a single question I did not answer? I'm sorry that my views do not match the general populations, and I have already said that you are all right in your own opinions. I will not adjust my opinion to follow someone elses just because no one else believes the same thing I do.

Valthazar

Quote from: DreamingWriter on January 31, 2014, 01:44:45 AM
I am not. I have given my point of view on the subject multiple times. I've answered every question you have asked me. Point out a single question I did not answer? I'm sorry that my views do not match the general populations, and I have already said that you are all right in your own opinions. I will not adjust my opinion to follow someone elses just because no one else believes the same thing I do.

I am being very respectful to you, and fully acknowledge your views as legitimate ones.  I am simply asking for clarification, so I can understand how you are developing your ideas.  I asked a few questions in my prior post.

DreamingWriter

Quote from: ValthazarElite on January 31, 2014, 01:47:28 AM
I am being very respectful to you, and fully acknowledge your views as legitimate ones.  I am simply asking for clarification, so I can understand how you are developing your ideas.  I asked a few questions in my prior post.

I'm sorry I forgot to quote, that was directed at the post above mine, not at you. The answer to yours is above that one.

Iniquitous

#171
You are being asked for clarification. Answering "That is correct. I suppose it's the way I have always viewed it, and there is no way to prove that it is wrong, and I have seen no reason to change my belief, so it stands as it is." is not clarification. It isn't even an answer. It is, yet again, a stance. A proclamation of you being right and no one being able to tell you that you are wrong. It is unyielding and it shows an inability to actually participate in a discussion because you refuse to acknowledge any position but your own.

Now, if you can add clarification to your stance then you would be participating in the discussion. As is, you are not. You are stirring the pot.

Oh, and to point out the question you have continually ignored and tried not to answer...

"Now, I have asked, repeatedly, for DW to tell me what I get out of my charitable deeds, and she has deigned to ignore the request." Using your rather impossibly broad definition of self interest and that anything ever done is done because it is in one's own interest, tell me what I get out of my charitable deeds. And no deflecting answer of "I can't possibly know that." You claim you are right and every single person on this planet acts in their own interest in all matters, that means you know what each person gets out of it.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


DreamingWriter

There is nothing for me to clarify. I'm sorry that my responses are not enough for you but that is all there is too them. I have a broad view of what self-interest is. It is a circular argument of "Someone does something, they have to want to do it, otherwise it wouldn't have happened" There is no way for me to know what it is that made them want to do it, I just know that the human brain wouldn't have let it happen if there wasn't a desire somewhere for them to want it, and in fulfilling their want to do it, they are in turn acting with a self-interest in mind.

Valthazar

DreamingWriter, don't feel that we are trying to pick on you.  It is just that this is a discussion and debate sub-forum, so the entire purpose is to be open about the underlying basis of our perspectives, and analyze why we hold the views we do.

For example, I was interested in knowing why you are using this broad, theoretical definition of self-interest versus the definition of self-interest that we use in daily life.

DreamingWriter

And I've said that none of you are wrong, there can be multiple right ways too look at things that aren't based on fact. Which this is. I don't understand why that's so hard to get.

To answer your question. I have always used it. I suppose that I gave up on humanity and don't believe in people doing things that don't interest themselves at some level, and it lead to this. But psychoanalyzing yourself is difficult so it's only a guess.

Oreo

Stepping in to try and clarify, DreamingWriter. These boards are open to debate, with facts to back up ones side of an issue. Opinions, are not 'debate'. Please familiarize yourself with our Forum Stickies before joining the discussions.

She led me to safety in a forest of green, and showed my stale eyes some sights never seen.
She spins magic and moonlight in her meadows and streams, and seeks deep inside me,
and touches my dreams. - Harry Chapin

Valthazar

Quote from: DreamingWriter on January 31, 2014, 02:21:20 AMTo answer your question. I have always used it. I suppose that I gave up on humanity and don't believe in people doing things that don't interest themselves at some level, and it lead to this. But psychoanalyzing yourself is difficult so it's only a guess.

Don't you think it is a logical fallacy to hold a perspective or view, simply because you "have always used it?" 

You are misunderstanding my prior question - I am interested in knowing the reasoning as to why you prefer to use the broad definition of the term, 'self-interest' for this particular issue, given that it is very different than our use of the term in other contexts.

DreamingWriter

Quote from: ValthazarElite on January 31, 2014, 02:25:58 AM
Don't you think it is a logical fallacy to hold a perspective or view, simply because you "have always used it?" 

You are misunderstanding my prior question - I am interested in knowing the reasoning as to why you prefer to use the broad definition of the term, 'self-interest' for this particular issue, given that it is very different than our use of the term in other contexts.

Your right .I believe I did misunderstand yoru question. I use it because it is the closest thing to describe the issue at hand in my overall understanding and conext of what self-interest is.

Moondazed

Quote from: ValthazarElite on January 31, 2014, 02:19:26 AM
DreamingWriter, don't feel that we are trying to pick on you.  It is just that this is a discussion and debate sub-forum, so the entire purpose is to be open about the underlying basis of our perspectives, and analyze why we hold the views we do.

This is the part that seems to be lacking, there are a lot of statements made but there doesn't appear to be interest in self-awareness as to why DW holds whatever views she holds, merely statements along the lines of, "This is the view I hold because I've always held it."

Quote from: Oreo on January 31, 2014, 02:23:46 AM
Stepping in to try and clarify, DreamingWriter. These boards are open to debate, with facts to back up ones side of an issue. Opinions, are not 'debate'. Please familiarize yourself with our Forum Stickies before joining the discussions.

Thank you for making this clarification.

Quote from: DreamingWriter on January 31, 2014, 02:55:42 AM
Your right .I believe I did misunderstand yoru question. I use it because it is the closest thing to describe the issue at hand in my overall understanding and conext of what self-interest is.

Restating a logical fallacy doesn't make it any less of a logical fallacy.  WHY is it the closest thing to describe the issue at hand in your overall understanding and context of what self-interest is?  If you have no desire to delve deeper that's fine, but realize that it's exceedingly arrogant to refuse to engage in actual debate and just apply your opinions to others.  Perhaps you gave up on humanity because you haven't grasped the art of actually communicating as opposed to just stating your opinions as fact?  I say that without malice, just to be clear.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

DreamingWriter

Quote from: Moondazed on January 31, 2014, 06:45:44 AM

Restating a logical fallacy doesn't make it any less of a logical fallacy.  WHY is it the closest thing to describe the issue at hand in your overall understanding and context of what self-interest is?  If you have no desire to delve deeper that's fine, but realize that it's exceedingly arrogant to refuse to engage in actual debate and just apply your opinions to others.  Perhaps you gave up on humanity because you haven't grasped the art of actually communicating as opposed to just stating your opinions as fact?  I say that without malice, just to be clear.

I think the problem with my trying to communicate is that it's being applied just to the conversation at hand and people aren't understanding why I view it as such. I don't believe human kind as a species is capable of selflessness. Not just in charity, but in anything. Everything in life is motivated by some sort of self-improvement. Animals for millions and millions of years have been taught and learned to do things that benefit them. Humans may have come up with the idea of selflessness but I don't believe that people can overwrite millions of years of evolution and use the term selfless as a base definition of doing something in which they don't gain an immediate seeable benefit. They psychological benefit may be there, or it may benefit the overall collective of humans as a species which would in turn benefit them. Each act has it's own benefit. So self-interest is the closest definition I can come to since I don't believe that such a thing as selfless exists.

meikle

#180
Quote from: DreamingWriter on February 01, 2014, 03:51:29 AMEverything in life is motivated by some sort of self-improvement. Animals for millions and millions of years have been taught and learned to do things that benefit them. Humans may have come up with the idea of selflessness but I don't believe that people can overwrite millions of years of evolution and use the term selfless as a base definition of doing something in which they don't gain an immediate seeable benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_on_a_grenade

Suicide is generally considered to be contrary to most ideas of ideal genetic programming (since it precludes reproduction), and for the most part, self-immolation is a terrible way to improve your own situation.  In a very real manner, these sorts of suicides (suicidal protest, self-destruction in protection) are very much the opposite of selfish; they are negating the self in the most profound way that humans can manage.

But humans do it for other people, and how can it be a selfish act to destroy the self?

I don't think that this is a behavior observed outside of humans.  Most animals will happily let other animals die (even their own family or children).

Now, you can expand the definition of self-interested -- "It's selfish to jump on a grenade because you personally value not having your friends die" but at that point the issue is that you've defined 'selfish' to encompass 'literally anything that you ever think to do' and, in so doing, render the discussion moot by making it semantically impossible.  Sure, if you define "selfish" as "anything an individual does," then it is impossible to behave selflessly.
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

DreamingWriter

Quote from: meikle on February 01, 2014, 07:07:11 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_on_a_grenade

That one is easy enough. You give up one life to save usually more than that. As I said, it may not benefit the individual directly in a seen way, but in keeping more people alive you are bettering the overall collective of the race and that would in turn be good for you in general, since if you are close enough to dive on it to save the lives of others, if you don't then you are likely to die anyway.

meikle

#182
Quotegood for you in general

There is no "you in general" when discussing the self.  "Self" refers to an individual.

If a person jumps on a grenade, there is no way that it will be "good for [them]" (unless, I guess, they are in a situation where self-annihilation is a safer option than whatever alternative they're facing, in which case I guess they are in a really bad situation.)

If you define "self" in a way that it is not defined anywhere else (certainly, "the self" is not defined as "the entirety of humanity" by anyone, really), I guess that's another way to semantically defeat the question.
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

DreamingWriter

It would be good for the species of human kind, Which in turn is good for them on a subconscious level. Like all animals humans want to grow, want to procreate, and want their species to live on. As long as we contribute to that then it is good for us. As he is contributing, that would be good for him even on a personal level because he is helping continue his species by making sure there are more that would be able to continue the next generation.

Iniquitous

I am trying very hard to see where you are coming from, but all I see is you saying your opinion is fact and not providing any facts to support your belief. This discussion is impossible because you insist on giving words a definition that only you have and I have a very strong feeling that you know exactly what you are doing.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


meikle

#185
Quote from: DreamingWriter on February 01, 2014, 07:18:18 AM
It would be good for the species of human kind, Which in turn is good for them on a subconscious level. Like all animals humans want to grow, want to procreate, and want their species to live on. As long as we contribute to that then it is good for us. As he is contributing, that would be good for him even on a personal level because he is helping continue his species by making sure there are more that would be able to continue the next generation.

There are assumptions in this post that, I think, do not hold water.  Humans do not "on a subconscious level... want to grow, want to procreate, want their species to live on."  Humans procreate because fucking is fun (and hey, look how much population growth drops in populations with the resources + education necessary to have sex without making kids.).  Humans grow because starving is unpleasant and eating is fun (and some people grow until it kills them which doesn't actually do a lot of good for humanity).  We are guided by carrots and sticks.  Now, we have some instincts -- babies flail their arms and kick their feet if you throw them in water, we get energetic when we're threatened, we kill people when they try to kill us.

But again, just because something is good for humanity (the species) does not mean it is good for me (the self.)  You can't really conflate the two, or again -- you're redefining 'self' to mean something that is essentially meaningless.
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

Valthazar

DancingWriter, I understand your opinion on the matter of charity, but I feel you are still misunderstanding the actual question that I asked.

I'll try to word it differently.  Take the 'falling on a grenade' example that was just posted by meikle above.  It demonstrates an act that most of us would not consider one of "self-interest," since most of us in this thread are using the everyday, working definition of what self-interest means.  Most of us define "self-interest" as pursuing something of tangible personal benefit - be it for money, respect from the community, status, ego, etc.

On the contrary, it appears that you define "self-interest" as being much broader.  For example, if someone donates money to a charity purely out of the goodness of their heart, you would still consider this an act of "self-interest" since you claim this is motivated by their desire to not feel guilty for not donating, and thus the "self-interest" would be their desire for psychological well-being.  Am I correct in this understanding?

I acknowledge that you, and many others, may fall into this latter category, in which case, I can understand why you are choosing to interpret self-interest in the manner you are.  But my question is, on what basis are you projecting this line of reasoning on all human beings?  Clearly as evidenced by the responses in this thread, many people are not motivated by the guilt of 'not' being charitable.

DreamingWriter

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on February 01, 2014, 07:28:27 AM
I am trying very hard to see where you are coming from, but all I see is you saying your opinion is fact and not providing any facts to support your belief. This discussion is impossible because you insist on giving words a definition that only you have and I have a very strong feeling that you know exactly what you are doing.
Quote from: meikle on February 01, 2014, 07:30:21 AM
There are assumptions in this post that, I think, do not hold water.  Humans do not "on a subconscious level... want to grow, want to procreate, want their species to live on."  Humans procreate because fucking is fun.  Humans grow because starving is unpleasant.  We are guided by carrots and sticks.  Now, we have some instincts -- babies flail their arms and kick their feet if you throw them in water, we get energetic when we're threatened, we kill people when they try to kill us.

But again, just because something is good for humanity (the species) does not mean it is good for me (the self.)  You can't really conflate the two, or again -- you're redefining 'self' to mean something that is essentially meaningless.

Base instincts have ruled over the human body since humans came into being. Our subconscious is active every second of every day and we can see nor do anything about it. How often do you have to think and force yourself to breath? How often do you have to command each and every muscle each time you move your leg in order to walk? You don't. The mind handles that on a sub conscious level that humans have not the power to tap into. Now you saw we grew out of our base instincts and as such my thoughts are invalid. But there are still useless instincts that we no longer need but are still present in every person in the world. Namely the fight or flight response. It's something that is shared by all animals all across the globe. As humans at least 90% of people no longer need that response in their body. Yet we have it. So while having sex may be enjoyable, that doesnt' change the fact that our brains subconsciously push us for it in order to procreate. And as such I don't see any reason why my argument is wrong.

Quote from: ValthazarElite on February 01, 2014, 07:31:33 AM
DancingWriter, I understand your opinion on the matter of charity, but I feel you are still misunderstanding the actual question that I asked.

I'll try to word it differently.  Take the 'falling on a grenade' example that was just posted by meikle above.  It demonstrates an act that most of us would not consider one of "self-interest," since most of us in this thread are using the everyday, working definition of what self-interest means.  Most of us define "self-interest" as pursuing something of tangible personal benefit - be it for money, respect from the community, status, ego, etc.

On the contrary, it appears that you define "self-interest" as being much broader.  For example, if someone donates money to a charity purely out of the goodness of their heart, you would still consider this an act of "self-interest" since you claim this is motivated by their desire to not feel guilty for not donating, and thus the "self-interest" would be their desire for psychological well-being.  Am I correct in this understanding?

I acknowledge that you, and many others, may fall into this latter category, in which case, I can understand why you are choosing to interpret self-interest in the manner you are.  But my question is, on what basis are you projecting this line of reasoning on all human beings?  Clearly as evidenced by the responses in this thread, many people are not motivated by the guilt of 'not' being charitable.

You are correct in thte way that I define self-interest. And I believe my post above this one answered your question. But if I'm still not getting it I will try again.

meikle

#188
I'm not sure if I need to say this, but breathing and fucking don't serve the same goal and aren't driven the same way, either.

Your theory seems to be that "there remain instincts that exist to preserve the self, ergo instincts that preserve the whole must also be present."  The issue is that there are really not a lot of instincts toward that kind of behavior in mammals.  Outside of insects, really, the approach of letting everything else fall so long as the self prevails has been fairly dominant.

It has been fairly dominant throughout human history, I think.  If you're going to keep telling us that humans are biologically programmed to kill themselves to save others, I think you're going to need a stronger authority to fall back to than "I said so."

QuoteSo while having sex may be enjoyable, that doesnt' change the fact that our brains subconsciously push us for it in order to procreate.
Arousal is usually something that people are very conscious of.  Then we have sex because it is enjoyable.  And then babies happen.  There is a reason that all of the stuff we can do to survive and procreate (in nature) either a) feels good when we do it or b) feels bad when we don't.
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

Iniquitous

You still are not getting it.


I’ll not tell you that you cannot redefine words to fit whatever it is you want to believe. I’m just going to flat out tell you that your insistence on doing so is simply so you can argue a stance that is not really arguable.

By the way, flight or fight response is not useless. We, as humans, still find ourselves in situations where adrenaline is very much needed (which is what the flight or fight response produces). What has not evolved is the many things that generate the flight or fight response.

Now then, base instincts. We now have you redefining two words in this conversation and I am an utter fool for even trying at this point because you are still using logical fallacy despite us asking you to stop. Your opinion does not make it fact - provide actual proof to back up your claim. You have not done so.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Valthazar

Quote from: DreamingWriter on February 01, 2014, 07:35:31 AMYou are correct in thte way that I define self-interest. And I believe my post above this one answered your question. But if I'm still not getting it I will try again.

What I mean is, other than voicing your personal opinion on the matter, I am failing to see any evidence suggesting that your view of self-interest (as I stated above), applies onto all human beings. 

I certainly acknowledge that some people, such as yourself, might be motivated to perform charitable acts due to this broad definition of self-interest, such as out of guilt, or the the desire to want to maintain a psychological well-being of morality.

But you do realize that this is only your view, right?  While you may be motivated by self-interest, many others are not.

DreamingWriter

Quote from: meikle on February 01, 2014, 07:47:48 AM
I'm not sure if I need to say this, but breathing and fucking don't serve the same goal and aren't driven the same way, either.

Your theory seems to be that "there remain instincts that exist to preserve the self, ergo instincts that preserve the whole must also be present."  The issue is that there are really not a lot of instincts toward that kind of behavior in mammals.  Outside of insects, really, the approach of letting everything else fall so long as the self prevails has been fairly dominant.

It has been fairly dominant throughout human history, I think.  If you're going to keep telling us that humans are biologically programmed to kill themselves to save others, I think you're going to need a stronger authority to fall back to than "I said so."

All animals, mammals or anything else, have an instinct to preserve their species. The simplest fact that proves such, is that must mammals raise their young. It stems from the fact that mammals have fewer young than most other types of animals, and so they will protect and raise them "With no self benefit" when it would seem illogical to do so. They do it to make sure that the race as a whole survives.

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on February 01, 2014, 07:48:59 AM
You still are not getting it.


I’ll not tell you that you cannot redefine words to fit whatever it is you want to believe. I’m just going to flat out tell you that your insistence on doing so is simply so you can argue a stance that is not really arguable.

By the way, flight or fight response is not useless. We, as humans, still find ourselves in situations where adrenaline is very much needed (which is what the flight or fight response produces). What has not evolved is the many things that generate the flight or fight response.

Now then, base instincts. We now have you redefining two words in this conversation and I am an utter fool for even trying at this point because you are still using logical fallacy despite us asking you to stop. Your opinion does not make it fact - provide actual proof to back up your claim. You have not done so.

I never said that no humans ever need the response. But a majority don't, so it should have died out through evolution since it has become useless to a majority of people. But it hasn't. And I have given just as many facts as you have to back up my point.

Quote from: ValthazarElite on February 01, 2014, 07:52:51 AM
What I mean is, other than voicing your personal opinion on the matter, I am failing to see any evidence suggesting that your view of self-interest (as I stated above), applies onto all human beings. 

I certainly acknowledge that some people, such as yourself, might be motivated to perform charitable acts due to this broad definition of self-interest, such as out of guilt, or the the desire to want to maintain a psychological well-being of morality.

But you do realize that this is only your view, right?  While you may be motivated by self-interest, many others are not.

And as I have stated before numerous times, if they want to believe that then that's fine and they are right. But I don't believe such a thing is possible.

meikle

#192
QuoteAll animals, mammals or anything else, have an instinct to preserve their species.
If this were true, spiders would not eat their babies.  And their siblings.  And other spiders of the same species.  But they do!  Because a spider's instinct is to Not Starve, and they have instincts related to what to do with those eggs when they lay them, and they have instincts about dancing around before they die to find a mate, but they don't have any instinct that says "make sure spiders keep on keeping on"; they have instincts to dance and eat anything smaller than them and lay their eggs in a safe place, and so far that's been more than enough to do the job.

I think too many people think that evolution is a goal, has an end-game, is working toward something, and that's not really right.  Humans don't have a drive to thrive as a species.  We have a bunch of much smaller drives that end with us thriving, maybe, "thrive as a species" isn't in our programming.  Neither is "reproduce" in our programming.  "Release endorphins when someone touches me here," that's in our programming.

QuoteThey do it to make sure that the race as a whole survives.
And then they leave their young to die the moment "can I feed myself and this baby at the same time?"  The survival of the race is a byproduct; in this case, yes, an instinctual one.  On the other hand, bears are probably at the low-end of self-awareness and probably driven primarily by instinct which distinguishes them from more intelligent animals (like humans, for example.)  Most of our 'instincts' at this point are reflexes -- actions that we undertake without input from the brain.  The other instinctual behaviors we show are weird stuff like yawning.  Pretty much everything else is learned.

QuoteBut a majority don't, so it should have died out through evolution since it has become useless to a majority of people.
If it sometimes helps and never hurts, there's no reason it should ever be selected against.  I do not think you really understand how evolution works.
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

Iniquitous

Again

DreamingWriter, you need to read the stickies attached to this subforum before you try to debate. Stating your opinion, your belief does not make it fact. Insisting that your opinion, your belief is fact is a logical fallacy. There is a whole huge thread devoted to logical fallacy and why it is not done here.

Now, I'll ask one last time. Please provide actual proof to support your claims.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Valthazar

Quote from: DreamingWriter on February 01, 2014, 07:53:48 AMAnd as I have stated before numerous times, if they want to believe that then that's fine and they are right. But I don't believe such a thing is possible.

I'm not asking whether you think it is possible, I'm asking if it is factually true to apply your philosophy to all individuals.  It is impossible to debate opinions, so in this sub-forum, we debate perspectives with facts.

I'm definitely not asking for you to personally agree with me with relevance to your own life.  Like Iniquitous Opheliac mentioned, I suggest you read the sticky threads in this section.

DreamingWriter

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on February 01, 2014, 07:56:10 AM
Again

DreamingWriter, you need to read the stickies attached to this subforum before you try to debate. Stating your opinion, your belief does not make it fact. Insisting that your opinion, your belief is fact is a logical fallacy. There is a whole huge thread devoted to logical fallacy and why it is not done here.

Now, I'll ask one last time. Please provide actual proof to support your claims.

Where is the proof to support that what I am saying is wrong? all you have offered me is your own opinions in response to mine. There are no facts on this matter. There are only theories, which can be used but can not be stated as fact. Your belief is one theory, that it's done selflessly. But it can't be proven because we can't look into the subconscious of anyone and see if there is any underlying meaning to what they are doing. Just as my theory can't be proven because again we can't go into the subconscious of every person and see if there is an underlying meaning. Saying that you know yourself is a lie. Noone knows what is going on in their own subconscious. That has been proven. And unless you can prove that you know your own subconscious thoughts then your arguments are just as much opinion as mine, even if it's the popular opinion.

Quote from: meikle on February 01, 2014, 07:55:57 AM
If this were true, spiders would not eat their babies.
And then they leave their young to die the moment "can I feed myself and this baby at the same time?"  The survival of the race is a byproduct; in this case, yes, an instinctual one.  On the other hand, bears are probably at the low-end of self-awareness and probably driven primarily by instinct which distinguishes them from more intelligent animals (like humans, for example.)  Most of our 'instincts' at this point are reflexes -- actions that we undertake without input from the brain.  The other instinctual behaviors we show are weird stuff like yawning.  Pretty much everything else is learned.
If it sometimes helps and never hurts, there's no reason it should ever be selected against.  I do not think you really understand how evolution works.

These are good points against my argument. To answer the first one. The example I gave was of mammals. Spiders lay many many young as a different survival instinct than mammals, and they eat their young and the young eat each other in their own unique way to ensure the survival of the species as a whole.

That again depends on the animal. Most monkeys will sacrifice themselves to save their young, simply because they view them as the next generation and the better chance to carry on the race. Mammals that haven't adapted or evolved to that point yet will save them selves so they can have another shot at creating young, which is again a survival instinct.

I do. The people who need it the most, are the ones who are in danger often. Which would mean they would die more often than those who don't need it or use it. So over the coarse of time it should have been bred out as the people who would be using it would be more likely to die, and those who no longer needed it would live more and have more children.

Quote from: ValthazarElite on February 01, 2014, 08:02:57 AM
I'm not asking whether you think it is possible, I'm asking if it is factually true to apply your philosophy to all individuals.  It is impossible to debate opinions, so in this sub-forum, we debate perspectives with facts.

I'm definitely not asking for you to personally agree with me with relevance to your own life.  Like Iniquitous Opheliac mentioned, I suggest you read the sticky threads in this section.

Read my answer to her, popular opinion does not make yoru viewpoints facts either. You are fighting back with your own opinions.

Iniquitous

Actually, I gave definitive fact when I posted the accepted definition of the word self interest. You still insist that your definition - a definition that only you use - is fact.

But, give me a little time here. I'll pull up facts on evolution that discredit your opinions. In the meantime.... stop. You are bordering on trolling and it is highly annoying.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


meikle

#197
QuoteThese are good points against my argument. To answer the first one. The example I gave was of mammals. Spiders lay many many young as a different survival instinct than mammals, and they eat their young and the young eat each other in their own unique way to ensure the survival of the species as a whole.

No, they eat their young because they're hungry.  Eating their babies is contradictory to the survival of their species.  Female spiders also try to kill males who mate with them a lot of the time, and a lot of the time they do it before mating occurs.  This is not good for the survival of their species.  It is a detriment.  If "make lots of spiders" was core to their instinct, spiders wouldn't do things like eat the entire contents of an egg sac before it hatches.

But it isn't detrimental enough to stop them outright, so they succeed despite.  These sorts of things are called maladaptive behaviors, and lots of species feature them.  The important thing to realize is that they are behaviors, though, and not goals.  We aren't subconsciously driven to reproduce: we are consciously driven by a desire to have orgasms.  We aren't subconsciously driven to care for our young; a lot of people don't and in humans it is fairly common for individuals to value themselves and their own safety over that of their children -- the same behavior seen in other mammalian species.

So I mean ... I guess your point is that it's never selfless to do something if you think that thing is worth doing.  Like, okay, I guess; on some level, anything we do as humans is what we do because we've determined it's the right course of action.  "Value human reproduction above all else" is definitely not like hard-coded into humans though.
Kiss your lover with that filthy mouth, you fuckin' monster.

O and O and Discord
A and A

Moondazed

DW, I encourage you to do some exploration into neurobiological research, watch some TEDTalks (http://www.ted.com/) about new and cutting edge research into how humans function, and I think you'll discover that it's not nearly as simple as you believe it to be.  There are many, many examples of people going against the accepted norms and not behaving the way that you state all human beings behave and just don't realize that they're doing it for the reason you're so certain of.  Hmmm... that sentence seems a bit confusing but heck if I know how to state it any more clearly. :)

If I had the time and energy to track down all of the information I've read and/or seen that contradicts your statements about humans in general, I would do so, but I don't so I hope you'll explore further and be open to the possibility that you just may be wrong.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Valthazar

Quote from: DreamingWriter on February 01, 2014, 08:09:32 AMRead my answer to her, popular opinion does not make yoru viewpoints facts either. You are fighting back with your own opinions.

Fighting back with my opinions? I am not at all suggesting that your personal view of charity in your own life is wrong or inaccurate.  You have found a perspective that works for you, as have I, and everyone else.

All I am suggesting is that without evidence, you cannot suggest that your opinion represents the views of all human beings.

Torterrable

DreamingWriter, while I believe I understand your point of view, I disagree with it. This, again, all comes down to how self-interest is defined; it appears that we do not have an argument on what what motivates charity, but to what extent can we consider a charitable deed done in self-interest.

As Oniya above so aptly put, charity done with the intentions only of furthering one's personal goals is not really charity at all. That is one extreme. There are a plethora of shades of meaning in between, and then there is the other extreme. Jumping on a grenade, for example, seems completely selfless. I would like to propose a visual, Maslow's hierarchy of needs.



Let us assume that all self-interest must stem from those needs; I am using a definition of self interest that requires it be fuelled by something that one "needs". While the kind of charity that would be considered in self-interest would be on the fourth level, self-esteem, or the third level, family and belonging, it seems that the ultimate sacrifice (and sacrifices less ultimate) would not fit on the pyramid, especially if they are aimed towards people one does not know and one may not ever meet.

Again, allow me to emphasize to what extent do we consider the acts of charity falling under "self-interest". I tutor kids because I want to make friends with them, and because I derive pleasure from it. I would consider this fuelled by my need to belong. However, I also do it because I want them to grow, to be better, to make it past high school and into college. I do not know these kids very well, and once the year is up, I may never see them again. I do this because I want them to go out and make the world a better place, at least for themselves. My benefit derived from that is the improvement of humanity, but is the improvement of humanity really a benefit purely for myself? Is it really self-interest if I want everyone to prosper?

Mithlomwen

Quote from: Oreo on January 31, 2014, 02:23:46 AM
Stepping in to try and clarify, DreamingWriter. These boards are open to debate, with facts to back up ones side of an issue. Opinions, are not 'debate'. Please familiarize yourself with our Forum Stickies before joining the discussions.

DreamingWriter, I'm not sure how debates on other forums go, but you need to read our rules here.  You are entitled to your opinion, just as everyone else is, but as other members (and a staff member) have pointed out to you several times, your personal opinion cannot be used as fact.  If you have information to support your opinion that is fine, but please take a moment to listen to the other members and stop trying to use your beliefs and opinions as fact. 

As Oreo posted before me, I'm not sure if you missed her message, so I need for  you to acknowledge that you have read and understand what we are pointing out to you.
Baby, it's all I know,
that your half of the flesh and blood that makes me whole...

Oniya

I think one sticking point of 'defining' any particular act of charity as 'self' serving comes down to set theory.

We'd all agree that something that benefits a group benefits each member of the group to some extent, right?  Something that benefits your family benefits you in some way (even if that 'something' is you working killer shifts to get more money so the house doesn't get foreclosed.)  Something that benefits your community benefits you in some way (even if that 'something' is you spending a chunk of time helping to feed people so that they don't resort to crime to survive.)  In the words of Ruth Roberts, 'I live in a house in a town in a county in a state in a country of the world, you see.  What goes on in the world is really up to me.'  (Anyone who recognizes that can join me on the porch to shake our canes at the young-uns.)

Gee, Oniya - isn't that pushing the definition of 'self serving' just a tad?  Yup.  To the very limit of elasticity. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Iniquitous

Ahh, but what about my case? My charitable donations are done in a different community than the one I live in (the particular city/town I am does not have shelters - the closest one is forty five minutes to an hour away, the closest food bank is thirty minutes away in the opposite direction). So any community benefits would not affect me personally.

The time I take to help take care of my grandmother (going out to cook meals, clean her house, help her with day to day needs) doesn’t benefit me personally. It benefits my grandmother (obviously), my mother and my aunts (because it gives them a break) but it doesn’t have a benefit for me.

I still say you cannot say that all charitable acts are based in self interest. Yes, it is possible that some people do them for their own self interest, but to try and say ALL are done for self interest is erroneous.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Oniya

As I said - stretched to the very limit of elasticity.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

consortium11

What a lot of discussion...

To pick up on a couple of points (and I apologize if I'm mis-stating anyone's position)

I understand where DreamingWriter's view on the motivation of actions comes from and how "self-interest" factors in. The issue I see here is that using this definition the term "self interest" becomes redundant. If I'm understanding the theory correctly then self-interest isn't merely a motivator for actions, it's a necessary requirement for an action to take place; the reason an action takes place is because the agent who does it believes (consciously or subconsciously) believes it is in there self-interest; because if it wasn't they wouldn't do it. It is in essence a very wide theory of psychological egoism.

My issue with the above is two-fold:

1) It doesn't actually define self-interest. It tells us it's a necessary component of an action but doesn't tell us what it is.

2) As it's a necessary condition for an action, the term itself becomes meaningless. If there has to be self-interest for an action to occur then to say an action is motivated by self-interest is redundant; if there wasn't self-interest the action wouldn't have occurred.




That said, I don't think some of the objections to DreamingWriter's position (despite the shaky foundations) perhaps aren't as strong as first supposed.

One point raised has been how charitable acts often seemingly don't benefit the agent who does them. The examples given are that it takes time and costs money. In fact, acting in a charitable manner can actually be to the detriment of the agent in question as by giving time and money they are unable to spend either of the two doing things more obviously in the self-interest. If someone chooses to spend their money on something for someone else rather than on themselves then on the face of it it is hard not to see that as being detrimental to the agents self-interest.

My question here is why we are entirely focusing on the material/tangible side of actions and not on the psychological? A large part of the generic "charity is selfish" argument is that while spending time and/or money on charity can be (or possibly even by definition is) detrimental to someone's material self-interest (and I should be clear I'm not talking about tax writeoffs or other such situations) the agent benefits from some measure of psychological pleasure/benefit from doing so. In some ways the converse may also apply; if someone views charity as somewhat of a duty or has a long history of doing so then by not giving to charity (be that time or money) aren't they at risk of, putting it crudely, feeling "bad" about themselves? And so while acting in a charitable manner may not give them any psychological benefit in and of itself, it prevents the psychological harm done by not acting in such a manner.

One point touched on above which I think is somewhat important to the conversation is where charity fits in the moral spectrum and how this impacts on its purpose. One theory generally separates out morality into a two-tier structure; moral values and moral duties, with the first relating to goodness, ideals and virtues while the latter refers to what ought to be done, to duties and obligations, to justice and rights. In essence think of the difference between what would be morally "good" to do and what we morally "ought" to do. Using this approach, traditionally morality was broken into three sorts of actions:

1) Actions that are good to do and bad not to do
2) Actions that are neither good to do nor bad not to do
3) Actions that are bad to do and good not to do

Charity generally doesn't fall into any of those categories; it's not generally seen as morally "bad" not to be charitable but it certainly is morally "good" to be charitable (again, not referring to tax write-offs or the like). Instead charity likely falls into a new category:

4) Actions that are good to do but not bad not to do

Someone may be praised for being charitable but they are unlikely to be criticised for not being charitable. I could go on for considerable detail about weaknesses and strengths of viewing charity this way but I'd be getting caught up in the details and I think that moral theory of charity is practical enough. It is this (which plays up the distinction between moral values and moral duties) that make charity seemingly of merit morally; it's not something that someone has to do, but they do anyway.

The second theory however doesn't include the distinction between moral values and moral duties. It holds a somewhat simpler and stricter view; if something is a moral good it therefore becomes a moral duty. Both Kantians and utilitarians generally fall into this area; for a utilitarian if promoting the overall good in the world is the fundamental principle of action, there can be no (non-utilitarian) exemption from the duty to do so and for a Kantian cannot accept something that is optional and personal on the one hand and not motivated by the subjection to the moral law on the other. Under such a theory it is hard to argue that charity has any moral merit; it is merely someone doing their duty and is simply doing what is expected of someone worthy of merit?

The two different approaches give us pretty radically different positions on the purpose of charity in terms of morality. In the latter case charity is simply acting in accordance with a moral duty; it is what people ought to do (and thus is not of any particular moral merit). In the former however, morality is going beyond what is expected or demanded and thus the purpose of it is not to fulfill a general moral duty.

Kythia

I think the issue with viewing charity from a strictly Kantian/Utilitarian view (perhaps particularly Kantian) is that it leads us through a slippery scale of efficiency, as I discussed before.

If charity is a moral duty then the question of effectiveness really does come to the fore.  The lawyer who gives up an hour of his time rather than the proceeds of an hour of time is no longer, really, performing an act of charity at all.  By which I mean his performance of his obligation is so sub par that you're forced to question whether he's doing his duty at all.  Ditto for my hypothetical donation to an inefficient charity as opposed to the alternative that uses a greater proportion of the money on causes and less on overheads (for the same net result, etc etc etc).

But that's not the way people feel.  People aren't criticised for making less than optimal charitable donations - there have been several examples in this thread of such that have passed unremarked.

So while, and I accept this is very far from a shiny new critic of Kant, viewing it in those terms may well provide a framework it doesn't provide a workable and intuitive framework.  And if the purpose of thinking about this is to be useful, a framework that sits at odds to how most of the world view the matter is unlikely to be helpful.
242037

consortium11

Quote from: Kythia on February 01, 2014, 01:01:30 PM
I think the issue with viewing charity from a strictly Kantian/Utilitarian view (perhaps particularly Kantian) is that it leads us through a slippery scale of efficiency, as I discussed before.

If charity is a moral duty then the question of effectiveness really does come to the fore.  The lawyer who gives up an hour of his time rather than the proceeds of an hour of time is no longer, really, performing an act of charity at all.  By which I mean his performance of his obligation is so sub par that you're forced to question whether he's doing his duty at all.  Ditto for my hypothetical donation to an inefficient charity as opposed to the alternative that uses a greater proportion of the money on causes and less on overheads (for the same net result, etc etc etc).

But that's not the way people feel.  People aren't criticised for making less than optimal charitable donations - there have been several examples in this thread of such that have passed unremarked.

So while, and I accept this is very far from a shiny new critic of Kant, viewing it in those terms may well provide a framework it doesn't provide a workable and intuitive framework.  And if the purpose of thinking about this is to be useful, a framework that sits at odds to how most of the world view the matter is unlikely to be helpful.

With regards the bolded part, surely not for a Kantian?

One of the most central bases for Kantian ethics is the idea that all that matters (or at least by far the most significant part) of the moral worth of an action comes from the agents intention, not the result. If, in line with a moral duty, someone gives to charity under a Kantian perspective then their action is undisputed good (albeit not worthy of merit as it is simply an agent doing their duty) regardless of the consequences.

Kythia

Well, I did actually mean utilitarian in my original parenthetical comment, yes, - not sure what happened there - but I think it applies to a Kantian view as well.

Imagine three acts I could do to help a given charity:

1) Act one provides no benefit to the charity - this is the bag of used underwear IO talked about earlier, don't know if you were here for that.
2) Provides a positive, definite benefit to the charity.  The lawyer on the soup line
3) Uses exactly the same resources as (2) but provides an unarguably larger one.  The lawyer donating that money.

I, being an omniscient Kantian, am aware of which category my action will fall in to.

Clearly (1) is straight out, I'm not doing my duty there.  However, I would argue that a Kantian viewpoint is that (2) is out as well.  The obligation is to help the charity and if there is a set of actions I could take which help the charity more, particularly ones using time and resources I have already made clear I am willing to devote to that cause, then the obligation on me is to take those actions.
242037

consortium11

How would you universalise (3)?

There is a moral duty not just to offer aid but to offer aid in the most beneficial form one can at a given time?

How do you get around the problem that such a duty would require one to give everything they have to charity if that was universalised... and then in turn those who had just received the benefit would have to immediately return it?

Kythia

Quote from: consortium11 on February 01, 2014, 02:05:58 PM
How would you universalise (3)?

There is a moral duty not just to offer aid but to offer aid in the most beneficial form one can at a given time?

How do you get around the problem that such a duty would require one to give everything they have to charity if that was universalised... and then in turn those who had just received the benefit would have to immediately return it?

Well, as discussed I personally wouldn't actually universalise it because I don't think a Kantian viewpoint is useful.  But within the boundaries of the conversation:

There is a moral duty not just to offer aid but to make sure the aid one offers is deployed in the most efficient way possible.
242037

Kythia

My issue is, and apologies for the double post, that without the criterion of effectiveness the obligation to help charity is toothless.  The way I help charity is to offer people a hearty slap on the back and a "You go girl" when they tell me that they help it - after all, encouragement is important.  The way someone else does is to give a penny they find in the washing machine.
242037

Oniya

The washing machine change is my personal charity.  I consider it payment for the service of going through the family's pockets.  (Because finding a used tissue after things go into the dryer defeats the whole purpose of trying to get the clothes clean.)  ;D
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Scribbles

I've only just skimmed this thread, as it's quite long, but I'm curious as to how far self-interest has been stretched regarding charity...

For example, let's say that I give to charity solely because I feel awful for the people living in such squalid conditions and hope that, by contributing, I will somehow improve their lives, even if by a little. Is this defined as self-interest based on the fact that I feel awful and I'm trying to rid myself of this feeling by uplifting those who are dragging me down emotionally?
AA and OO
Current Games: Stretched Thin, Very Little Time

consortium11

Quote from: Scribbles on February 06, 2014, 05:03:26 AM
I've only just skimmed this thread, as it's quite long, but I'm curious as to how far self-interest has been stretched regarding charity...

For example, let's say that I give to charity solely because I feel awful for the people living in such squalid conditions and hope that, by contributing, I will somehow improve their lives, even if by a little. Is this defined as self-interest based on the fact that I feel awful and I'm trying to rid myself of this feeling by uplifting those who are dragging me down emotionally?

The point's been brought up but never seemed to become a central part of the discussion. To me that's unfortunate as it seems to me to be a rather central part of the argument about whether charity is "really" selfless or is actually in the agent's self-interest.

Personally, I'm not sure we can dismiss non-material benefits in this context. If I do something because it makes me feel good... or because it doesn't make me feel bad... isn't that acting in my self interest? And so if I assist a charity for no material benefit (or even at a material cost) but I feel good because of it or because I don't feel as bad as I would if I didn't assist, aren't I acting in my own self interest if I do assist the charity?

Moondazed

So feeling good about giving counts as self-interest? I don't know, that seems like stretching the definition on order to make it fit the premise.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

consortium11

Quote from: Moondazed on February 06, 2014, 10:25:09 AM
So feeling good about giving counts as self-interest? I don't know, that seems like stretching the definition on order to make it fit the premise.

I'd suggest it's actually tightening the definition too much to not include it; to use the partial defintion from Miriam-Webster early in the thread:

"your own interest or advantage"

Is feeling good (or not feeling bad) not in your self-interest to do? Do we only ever limit self-interest to material benefits?

Kythia

Quote from: consortium11 on February 06, 2014, 11:13:23 AM
I'd suggest it's actually tightening the definition too much to not include it; to use the partial defintion from Miriam-Webster early in the thread:

"your own interest or advantage"

Is feeling good (or not feeling bad) not in your self-interest to do? Do we only ever limit self-interest to material benefits?

But that seems to lead to DreamingWriter's "anything you do is in your self interest because otherwise you wouldn't do it"
242037

Scribbles

Personally, I don't mind if a definition is taken to an extreme, I certainly find it preferable to the opposite where it is subtly twisted to suit an agenda...

My only gripe is in the case of charity and self-interest it is usually used to validate a highly cynical viewpoint. That is to say, there is no good, only self-interest and so forth...

I want to emphasize that I'm not referring to anyone in this thread...
AA and OO
Current Games: Stretched Thin, Very Little Time

consortium11

Quote from: Kythia on February 06, 2014, 11:19:13 AM
But that seems to lead to DreamingWriter's "anything you do is in your self interest because otherwise you wouldn't do it"

Sorry, missed this earlier.

DreamingWriter's postion was that self-interest was a sort of necessary condition for any action; it went beyond mere motivation to be the only reason an action can occur.

My view is less fundamentalist. I simply think that when viewing things as being in one's self interest we can't entirely limit that to material benefits. Self-interest simply remains one of many possible motivations for an action.