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

[Pattern-chaser]

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?

As I said in response to the last time you did this:

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

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

Charity is giving to someone in need. All else is just a distraction. Charity is not about the grand effect on the world your charity will have, or not, it's about seeing a need, and trying to satisfy it, I think?

Whatever else, "control" has nothing at all to do with charity.

[Lagayascienza]

The argument that most homeless people willingly choose homelessness as a "lifestyle choice" is untenable. Homelessness is not conducive to wellbeing of any sort. Many of the homeless have mental health issues or were born poor or are victims of circumstances beyond their control.

I can't see how the lack of 100% certainty about how money given will be spent should preclude giving. People do worse things with money without knowing how it will be spent by the receiver - gambling on a horse or at a casino, for example, knowing full well that they are most unlikely to win. We can never be 100% certain about anything but I know that if I were homeless and someone gave me a few bucks I'd go get a burger and I'm sure most of the homeless would do similarly.

Empathy and kindness have nothing to do with "building a moral system". Most of us feel an innate sympathy for people experiencing hard time. I know that, but for some lucky breaks, my life could have been like theirs. And, if that were the case, I know that money given to me would do me more good than harm. As well as buying me a meal, just a little kindness might restore my faith in humanity and make me try all the harder, on a full stomach, to do all I could to end my homelessness.

To hell with building a "moral system". Empathy and kindness have nothing to do with "moral systems". Empathy is just felt. We do not choose to feel it. Those who lack empathy lack something important, something of the best of what it is that makes us human. And they may be wealthy and comfortable for a short time, but death will come for them just as it does the beggar, and maybe it will even come sooner for them.

Most of us fall somewhere between the psychopath and the saint - we live our comfortable lives, and give what we feel we can spare when empathy strikes. That's normal. Trying to make a fault out of ordinary empathy and human kindness is simply beyond me.

[LuckyR]

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.

Charity is giving to someone in need. All else is just a distraction. Charity is not about the grand effect on the world your charity will have, or not, it's about seeing a need, and trying to satisfy it, I think?

Whatever else, "control" has nothing at all to do with charity.

Exactly. Hence my Greenpeace example.

[Sy Borg]

If I was homeless, I'd rather people throw coins than rocks, literally and figuratively.

[LuckyR]

If I was homeless, I'd rather people throw coins than rocks, literally and figuratively.

Funny, when I was a kid, I actually worried about ending up as a "bum" (no one lived in a tent on the sidewalk back then). Although, rationally the chance of it happening was essentially zero. But I had the fear. Fear, as it happens is an excellent motivator. Despair, OTOH is a demotivator.

There must be a way of presenting negative information that promotes one but not the other.

[Sy Borg]

If I was homeless, I'd rather people throw coins than rocks, literally and figuratively.

Funny, when I was a kid, I actually worried about ending up as a "bum" (no one lived in a tent on the sidewalk back then). Although, rationally the chance of it happening was essentially zero. But I had the fear. Fear, as it happens is an excellent motivator. Despair, OTOH is a demotivator.

There must be a way of presenting negative information that promotes one but not the other.

I expect there are a number of ways that could be effective for various personality types. Given the especially Sisyphean nature of the world the young will grow up in, ideally information would be more Camus than Nietzsche. Expectations will be lowered, and that won't come without a cost in bitterness.

In the meantime, controlling the information that young people access appears to be no more possible now than it was back when ye anciente members of the forum were curious whippersnappers.

[David awunor]

I don't think you should be concerned with whether the money you give to a homeless person is used for something you consider good or bad (unless "bad" in this case causes harm to someone else).

You might consider something bad for the homeless person, but they may not view it the same way. In such cases, instead of choosing not to be charitable, you can provide basic necessities such as food and clothing.

[Samana Johann]

Is is right or wrong to give money to the less fortunate?

Many believe that it is always right to give freely to those who have less, believing that those without should be helped by those with the means.
However, I consider this idea as an alternative.

Take your average encounter with a vagrant on the streets of a large metropolis. If I give this 20$ bill to the man on the corner asking for change, I have lost little of my personal value, while the man on the corner now has 20$ that he otherwise might not be able to get. Hopefully, this man takes that money and buys food, clothing, could rent a room for an evening, so on.

However, what if that man takes that 20$, and then buys and smokes crack-cocaine?
Some would say that I am not at moral fault, and that regardless of what the man on the corner does, I have at least attempted a good action.

In my opinion, the designation of blame and praise is trickier. Should I have realized that while this man might take the money I gave him and use it well, he might also do something quite destructive such as buying and smoking crack (if you do not believe that drug usage has negative effects for everyone and not just the user, this example will not convince you well)?

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?

Is it sometimes the right thing to do to NOT be "charitable"?

Giving at five occasions is never wrong:

* to someone (any being) new arriving
* to someone up to leave
* in times of lack of food
* in times of sickness
* and the best fruit are every time best placed toward those with virtue and metta

Outside this 5 seasonal gifts, it would alway lead to bonds and burdens.

[Lagayascienza]

Nonsense. We give on many different occasions and not just according to the four five rules your silly version of Buddhism prescribes. We often do give to the hungry and the sick and to guests. But we also give for the joy of giving and to show love for friends and family - on birthdays and annniversaries, for example, and at Christmas. And we often give to what we consider good causes such as to Greenpeace and Amnesty International.

Moreover, your dictate that we give the "best fruits" to those with virtue and "metta" is so transparently self-serving. No doubt you consider your preachy self to be one of the emminently deserving. I don't. People will have different views on what constitutes virtue. I do not consider showy piety to be any sort of virtue. It's just virtue-signalling.

Empathy, and giving to those in need is part of our evolved, human core morality which needs no religious justification. It is just normal human goodness not done with an eye to reward in some imaginary afterlife.

[Samana Johann]

*Rowf rowf*

....But we also give for the joy of giving and to show love for friends and family - on birthdays and annniversaries, for example, and at Christmas. And we often give to what we consider good causes such as to Greenpeace and Amnesty International.

That's not generosity that supports liberality, but binding and trade, or simple rites andrituals.

Moreover, your dictate that we give the "best fruits" to those with virtue and "metta" is so transparently self-serving. No doubt you consider your preachy self to be one of the emminently deserving. I don't. People will have different views on what constitutes virtue. I do not consider showy piety to be any sort of virtue. It's just virtue-signalling.

Normal for one with much conceit, extreme stingy and lazy to trade his way up. It requires wisdom, generosity, isn't something common. It's easier to play the great helper and trade downwardly, then to ask someone more sublime to accept one's gift, and trade upwardly.

Empathy, and giving to those in need is part of our evolved, human core morality which needs no religious justification. It is just normal human goodness not done with an eye to reward in some imaginary afterlife.

But because good householder gave steady into what caused him harm and troubles, bonds and disappointment, he still finds no joy in generosity. Regrets and regrets... It's surely also seldom to meet those worthy of gifts.

There are lot of people who even prefer to give to animal instead of care generously for humans at the four proper occasions.

[Lagayascienza]

You need to quit doing whatever it is that made you the way you are. It seems to have done you nothing but harm. You speak of "conceit, extreme stingy and lazy to trade his way up". I think you get the gold medal for all of those. You are nothing like the Buddha. He would be ashamed of you. And, if he were not so compassionate, he would have gone nowhere near you for fear of defilement. Your preachy, holier-than-thou, self-serving piety and virtue signalling indicate that you have much work to do. You are still on the wheel of craving, suffering and rebirth. So don ypur saffron robes and get out on that dusty road with your begging bowl and learn some humility.