Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[HJCarden]

As for you, it's your call. I won't judge. All of life is a gamble, all of life takes judgement in the moment as well as principles. Generally speaking, if you won't miss the money, you will probably do more good than harm on balance by passing over some money. Some might say, as with tipping, that such charity just encourages systemic neglect by alleviating its impact and making that neglect less visible. Then again, people say a lot of things

Looking at the responses, and thinking about all that I have heard, it seems that most people hold the same common position that if you wont miss the money, you should give it to the needy. I believe that many in the west (USA especially) have the belief that most people on the streets are just there because they fell on hard times, and that the system somehow failed them. I estimate that this perception is not correct. If I had to estimate, the majority of the vagrant population is people who have chosen that lifestyle through one means or another (of course actual data on this is more informative than my subjective guesses). I think this perception is what hinges peoples beliefs, and so they mentally estimate that they have at least a 50% chance of helping someone who truthfully is in need of help, and has no way out of this situation without it.

If this common perception that I reference is not in accordance with the reality of the data, I wonder why this perception would have taken hold.

[HJCarden]

In the end, maintaining a pool of homelessness is what many governments do. The Australian government brought in a record number of immigrants at a time when rental vacancy rates were less than 1%. It guarantees increased homelessness, and this is far from the only western government harming the most vulnerable with mass immigration.

Governments could reduce homelessness but they choose not to, presumably to boost GDP (because less weight is placed in the more important metric - GDP per capita) and to keep housing prices artificially high - because almost all politicians and corporate powerbrokers are deeply into property.

Can you explain further how not reducing homelessness boosts GDP? And how does this keep housing prices artificially high?

[Sy Borg]

In the end, maintaining a pool of homelessness is what many governments do. The Australian government brought in a record number of immigrants at a time when rental vacancy rates were less than 1%. It guarantees increased homelessness, and this is far from the only western government harming the most vulnerable with mass immigration.

Governments could reduce homelessness but they choose not to, presumably to boost GDP (because less weight is placed in the more important metric - GDP per capita) and to keep housing prices artificially high - because almost all politicians and corporate powerbrokers are deeply into property.

Can you explain further how not reducing homelessness boosts GDP? And how does this keep housing prices artificially high?

It's about supply and demand. By increasing immigration, governments boost GDP (more "human resources") and it also creates greater demand for housing, and that results in higher prices and rents. What happens is that the poorest citizens can no longer afford housing and fall into homelessness. I expect a dramatic increase in homelessness in Australia and Canada in the next two years.

[LuckyR]

OTOH, of course there are numerous of the less fortunate who just happen to have fallen on hard times, they don't have an illegal income stream and would use any assistance to get back on their feet since their goal is to recover to their previous level of economic security.

I go out of my way to help the latter since any assistance is likely to move that person farther towards a better situation.

How do you know which ones are the latter? If I could discriminate between panhandlers and people who were genuinely on hard times, I would not be asking the question that I am. I assume myself to be ignorant of a persons real circumstances when just looking at them. So then I ask myself the question: will my charity create more good, or more evil in the world? And that is the question I come here with, asking about the right course of action in this scenario.

I don't know, of course.I give it my best guess, erring on the side of caution. After all, no matter what I do I'm only going to give to <<1% of the people who seek help (in other words I'm going to not give to >>99%). Why not just give to those I have zero qualms about giving to? Obviously I could be totally mistaken, but I'll never know the difference. Thus part of what I "get" with my donation is peace of mind.

[Lagayascienza]

Be kind to each other. I think that's as good a guide as any for how to live. To me, that means being generous if I won't miss the money and if I think it will do more good than harm.

"Being kind" is not a moral guideline.

This is exactly the question I am posing. I am UNSURE if my action will do more harm than good. How can you really tell by looking at someone if they really need the extra money or not? If you have given money to a stranger who then took that money to buy drugs, which in turn funds gang, smuggling and human trafficking operations, have you really done something good?

So it seems to me that "being kind" in this situation provides no moral clarity.

Who said anything about a MORAL guideline?

We can never be 100% certain of how money given will be spent. And we can never have "moral clarity". But is that a reason not to give at all?

If the person asking is not drunk or drugged out, then I will often give what I can afford out of sympathy for the person. I might be in that position one day - homeless, perhaps through no fault of my own. In that situation, I think someone helping me out with a few bucks would do me more good than harm. It's that simple.

[Pattern-chaser]

IF I believe that there is a more than 50% chance that the money I give the man on the corner will be used for something bad, should I withhold my charity?

So your charity, your giving of a gift to someone less fortunate, is conditional? That he must use what you give him as you think he should? Is this properly described as "charity"? It is not what a Christian Bible would describe as charity, but perhaps you mean something different by "charity" than Jesus described?

[N.B. I am not a Christian; I just used it as a convenient example.]

Is giving "conditional" if one chooses to give only in circumstances where it will do the most "good" under the giver's definition? Obviously no one has the resources to give in every circumstance, thus not giving in certain situations is not only normal, but required.

As part of understanding my recent (6 years ago) diagnosis of autism, I had cause to review the Golden Rule. I realised that it's no good treating someone else as you would like to be treated. To achieve your aim, you have to treat them as *they* would like to be treated. Your opinion has no merit in this, because it's not about you. [N.B. I don't mean "you", LuckyR, I mean "one", or something close to that.]

In the same way, I think that the giver's idea of what is "good" has no merit or relevance. It is the potential recipient's view of "good" that matters, I think? Charity is unconditional, and looks for no return. In this, if nothing else, the Roman Catholic cultists who raised me were spot-on.

[Pattern-chaser]

So then I ask myself the question: will my charity create more good, or more evil in the world?

I don't think you can know that. You extend charity for your own reasons and purposes. But those reasons and purposes don't really have anything at all to do with the potential recipients of your potential charity, do they?

[HJCarden]

So then I ask myself the question: will my charity create more good, or more evil in the world?

I don't think you can know that. You extend charity for your own reasons and purposes. But those reasons and purposes don't really have anything at all to do with the potential recipients of your potential charity, do they?

My reasons for charity are in the question above: I would only be charitable if I believed it would create more good in the world. Of course this takes into account the recipient as well as further effects of my action. If someone was trying to murder you, and they asked for a knife, would you give them the knife?

[HJCarden]

As part of understanding my recent (6 years ago) diagnosis of autism, I had cause to review the Golden Rule. I realised that it's no good treating someone else as you would like to be treated. To achieve your aim, you have to treat them as *they* would like to be treated. Your opinion has no merit in this, because it's not about you. [N.B. I don't mean "you", LuckyR, I mean "one", or something close to that.]

In the same way, I think that the giver's idea of what is "good" has no merit or relevance. It is the potential recipient's view of "good" that matters, I think? Charity is unconditional, and looks for no return. In this, if nothing else, the Roman Catholic cultists who raised me were spot-on.

I realize that treating other people as THEY would like to be treated usually yields better results than the golden rule. However, take for example an extreme masochist, who loves feeling pain in its most extreme form. By using the Platinum Rule and treating them as they would like to be treated, you are not bound to inflict punishment upon this person that would make you shudder. Is this really a better way to go about things?

I believe that my idea of good has quite a bit of relevance when making this decision. I need not receive anything in return for my charity, but I still would like to believe that it is creating more good rather than evil in the world. Would you have given money to the poor, out of work, failed painter from Austria?

[LuckyR]

IF I believe that there is a more than 50% chance that the money I give the man on the corner will be used for something bad, should I withhold my charity?

So your charity, your giving of a gift to someone less fortunate, is conditional? That he must use what you give him as you think he should? Is this properly described as "charity"? It is not what a Christian Bible would describe as charity, but perhaps you mean something different by "charity" than Jesus described?

[N.B. I am not a Christian; I just used it as a convenient example.]

Is giving "conditional" if one chooses to give only in circumstances where it will do the most "good" under the giver's definition? Obviously no one has the resources to give in every circumstance, thus not giving in certain situations is not only normal, but required.

As part of understanding my recent (6 years ago) diagnosis of autism, I had cause to review the Golden Rule. I realised that it's no good treating someone else as you would like to be treated. To achieve your aim, you have to treat them as *they* would like to be treated. Your opinion has no merit in this, because it's not about you. [N.B. I don't mean "you", LuckyR, I mean "one", or something close to that.]

In the same way, I think that the giver's idea of what is "good" has no merit or relevance. It is the potential recipient's view of "good" that matters, I think? Charity is unconditional, and looks for no return. In this, if nothing else, the Roman Catholic cultists who raised me were spot-on.

Well yes and mostly no. You're correct that once the recipient obtains the charity they rightly control how it is used, not the giver. However, before that time, when the giver is deciding to whom to give his charity, the giver's criteria (not the receiver's) is paramount. Thus if, say the Red Cross is objectively determined to do the most good in the world, but my favorite animals are whales and I want to give to Greenpeace, it is completely logical to do so.

[HJCarden]

Who said anything about a MORAL guideline?

We can never be 100% certain of how money given will be spent. And we can never have "moral clarity". But is that a reason not to give at all?

If the person asking is not drunk or drugged out, then I will often give what I can afford out of sympathy for the person. I might be in that position one day - homeless, perhaps through no fault of my own. In that situation, I think someone helping me out with a few bucks would do me more good than harm. It's that simple.

I assumed that in the "Ethics and Morality" thread, we would be giving arguments with MORAL import, but if I am mistaken I take the blame.

I do think that this lack of certainty is morally concerning and is a reason for pause.

I believe your ideas of giving match up pretty well to how most people view the act of a charitable donation. The first part of this view is shaped (I believe) by a desire for personal gratification. You mentioned your feeling of sympathy, which I assure you that I share, having worked as a volunteer at homeless shelters/food kitchens when I was younger. I am not discounting anyone's altruism, but it would be foolish to not believe that some selfish motives can enter the picture.

This leads to the second, more mendacious aspect of this view, represented by something like this statement: "I did something good by giving money to that homeless person". When we cant directly see the results of our actions, we often extrapolate from our emotions regarding our own actions. It DOES feel good to give money to the homeless, believing that your action had positive outcomes. And because we often can't track these outcomes ourselves, we tend to believe they are good because we took the action in good faith. However, if we actually examine the action, we have no real idea if we did good or bad! This is of vast moral import to anyone who wants to build a moral system that goes beyond vibes and "being kind".

[HJCarden]

I don't know, of course.I give it my best guess, erring on the side of caution. After all, no matter what I do I'm only going to give to <<1% of the people who seek help (in other words I'm going to not give to >>99%). Why not just give to those I have zero qualms about giving to? Obviously I could be totally mistaken, but I'll never know the difference. Thus part of what I "get" with my donation is peace of mind.

I believe that what you "get" from your donation biases your thinking on the matter. When you satisfy an emotional need, such as alleviating the pangs of sympathy that are associated with seeing someone begging for money, it is tempting to believe that you have done something good for someone else. However, I do not believe that I can actually be sure if that money will create more good or evil in the world. Therefore, the only good that I know of for certain will be my emotional gratification, and that alone should not be justification for my actions.

[LuckyR]

I don't know, of course.I give it my best guess, erring on the side of caution. After all, no matter what I do I'm only going to give to <<1% of the people who seek help (in other words I'm going to not give to >>99%). Why not just give to those I have zero qualms about giving to? Obviously I could be totally mistaken, but I'll never know the difference. Thus part of what I "get" with my donation is peace of mind.

I believe that what you "get" from your donation biases your thinking on the matter. When you satisfy an emotional need, such as alleviating the pangs of sympathy that are associated with seeing someone begging for money, it is tempting to believe that you have done something good for someone else. However, I do not believe that I can actually be sure if that money will create more good or evil in the world. Therefore, the only good that I know of for certain will be my emotional gratification, and that alone should not be justification for my actions.

Oh really? What, then should be the justification for your action? Of course, many, if not most would observe that since it's your money, you don't need to justify spending it to anyone, save yourself.

[Lagayascienza]

Who said anything about a MORAL guideline?

We can never be 100% certain of how money given will be spent. And we can never have "moral clarity". But is that a reason not to give at all?

If the person asking is not drunk or drugged out, then I will often give what I can afford out of sympathy for the person. I might be in that position one day - homeless, perhaps through no fault of my own. In that situation, I think someone helping me out with a few bucks would do me more good than harm. It's that simple.

I assumed that in the "Ethics and Morality" thread, we would be giving arguments with MORAL import, but if I am mistaken I take the blame.

I do think that this lack of certainty is morally concerning and is a reason for pause.

I believe your ideas of giving match up pretty well to how most people view the act of a charitable donation. The first part of this view is shaped (I believe) by a desire for personal gratification. You mentioned your feeling of sympathy, which I assure you that I share, having worked as a volunteer at homeless shelters/food kitchens when I was younger. I am not discounting anyone's altruism, but it would be foolish to not believe that some selfish motives can enter the picture.

This leads to the second, more mendacious aspect of this view, represented by something like this statement: "I did something good by giving money to that homeless person". When we cant directly see the results of our actions, we often extrapolate from our emotions regarding our own actions. It DOES feel good to give money to the homeless, believing that your action had positive outcomes. And because we often can't track these outcomes ourselves, we tend to believe they are good because we took the action in good faith. However, if we actually examine the action, we have no real idea if we did good or bad! This is of vast moral import to anyone who wants to build a moral system that goes beyond vibes and "being kind".

I think most human beings are like you and me insofar as they do not willing choose homelessness as a "lifestyle choice". That would be maladaptive. Many of them have mental health issues or were born poor or are victims of circumstances beyond their control.

The difference between you and me is that I don't see the lack of 100% certainty about how money I give will be spent as a reason never to give. We can never be 100% certain about anything. And, for me, it's got nothing to do with "building a moral system". I feel an innate sympathy for people experiencing hard times and I know that, but for some lucky breaks, my life might be like theirs.

You speak of those who "want to build a moral system that goes beyond vibes and "being kind", but I don't believe we build moral systems. Not from the ground up anyway. They are part of what we are as a species. Empathy is just felt. We do not choose to feel it. I would concede, though, that empathy is felt more strongly by some than by others. Psychopaths feel none. Those who go out at night to feed the homeless using their own money to buy food feel it greatly.

Most of us fall somewhere between these two poles - we live our comfortable lives, giving what we feel we can spare when empathy strikes. That's normal.

[Pattern-chaser]

So then I ask myself the question: will my charity create more good, or more evil in the world?

I don't think you can know that. You extend charity for your own reasons and purposes. But those reasons and purposes don't really have anything at all to do with the potential recipients of your potential charity, do they?

My reasons for charity are in the question above: I would only be charitable if I believed it would create more good in the world.

No, you choose to be charitable only if you believe it would create more good in the world. But you don't get to define charity. Because you are the giver, you get to choose why, how, and if. But you are missing the point. The point of charity is the person who needs it, not the person who gives it.

Oh, and there are some who will tell you that if you can afford your donation, it isn't charity.

If someone was trying to murder you, and they asked for a knife, would you give them the knife?

That's not a refutation, it's just an attempt to ignore what it supposedly ridicules.





Americans always seem to hold a very giver-centric view on charity, and philanthropy in general. Is it part of American culture, in some way?