Topic: The Purpose of Charity

[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.

[Valthazar]

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.

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]

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]

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."

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.

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.

[DreamingWriter]

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]

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.

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.

[DreamingWriter]

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]

good 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.

[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.

[meikle]

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.

[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]

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.

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.

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]

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."

So 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.

[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.

[Valthazar]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

All 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.

They 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.

But 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.

[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.

[Valthazar]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

[meikle]

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.

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.

[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.

[Valthazar]

Read 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.