Selfishness in Charity Donations

[Aaron MkII]

Jesus Christ, has all the empathy and humanity left the board? Good fucking god Bean, shut the hell up.

[Aaron MkII]

Jesus Christ, has all the empathy and humanity left the board? Good fucking god Bean, shut the hell up.

I mean really, do you think making the guy feel terrible about himself accomplishes anything?

[JLTucker]

Jesus Christ, has all the empathy and humanity left the board? Good fucking god Bean, shut the hell up.

Can you even follow his posts? I only know what's being argued because Mike laid it out in a clear and concise manner. Bean appears to lack any sort of writing skills to clearly convey ideas. It reminds me of high school students bullshitting their way through academic essays, like I did on many occasions.

I don't know if I agree with my charitable donations being scene as inferior because I don't want people to suffer from Crohn's Disease like I do. I want a cure readily available upon diagnosis. I don't want them going on Remicaid, Cimzia, Humira, and other sorts of horrible drugs. In donating I'm not even thinking about the probable money helping me out. I'm doing it for others, not myself. I thought I was a cynical cunt.

[Aaron MkII]

I honestly do not care why Phant donated or to what disease, it's enough that he did. Bean just appears to be acting like a dick because he can.

[Channel72]

That's the point Phant, you can try and pretend but your donation was selfish in nature.

Yeah, tell it like it is. I love Internet cynicism.

You did not donate to fight a disease you donated to fight something that had affected you personally. Even if your actions were selfish good will still come of them. But you can't accept that, your donations have to be purely for the greater good with no selfish attachments what so ever. Otherwise your less than you think you are. Your not a good person for donating to fight a disease that has hurt you Phat. That IS the point of what was said on the last page. Donating to help yourself is not an act most would call selfless. Accept that fact Phat.

Holy shit. Do you think Phantasee believed that his donation would actually cure Leukemia in time to help himself or anyone he knows - or even have any noticeable impact on the current state of Leukemia research?

The answer is no, probably not. When most people donate to medical research, unless they have millions of dollars to donate, they're usually not under any delusions that their donation actually matters. So they're not fucking donating out of self-preservation, or even with the hope that their donation will help someone they personally know. Again, if you have to be a tediously cynical shithead, just tell Phantasee his donation was a meaningless way to feel good about himself that won't actually help anybody, because that's closer to the truth than your bullshit argument that donating to cancer research is actually motivated by fear of getting cancer.

[Mr Bean]

Cute, so failing to address the point you simply attack and run off.
Let me make this clear, I know why your offended. I don't mind, after all I am telling you an act you saw as a morally good thing to do was a selfish act. Which is what I've said several times now.

Let me put it a bit more bluntly. To preform a selfless act it must be something you don't directly benefit from. I'm not calling you a cunt because you donated money to fight a disease Phant. I'm not calling you anything except to point out the act was selfish in nature, you will benefit from it even if you don't want to admit that. And acting to benefit ones self is a selfish act.

It's as simple as that.
It does not make you bad, it does not make you anything.

[Phantasee]

I'm not running anywhere, Mr Bean. I have nothing to say to you in this thread. You're a piece of shit that doesn't know when to shut the fuck up.

[Mr Bean]

I'm not running anywhere, Mr Bean. I have nothing to say to you in this thread. You're a piece of shit that doesn't know when to shut the fuck up.

Excuse me Phant I was referencing Aaron MK II not you. I should have quoted him to make that clear.

@Channel72
Scale is irrelevant to the morality of the charitable action. Donating more money does not make it more good, it simply makes more. Donating blood can be called a morally good act as it is a donation, at best you hope someone else of your blood type is also donating but as your not payed for your time or blood (At least in this state) donating blood can be called a morally good act as it can be done without thought of repayment. But donating more blood is not a better act. It's simply the same act again. Donating more blood does not make it more good in other words. Thus donating money to fight a disease that has not impacted you or those you care for can be a morally good act. But donating more money is not more good.

[Losonti Tokash]

I've donated to the JDRF for years and years and years, but I'm now engaged to someone diagnosed with juvenile diabetes when she was 12. Does this make my previous donations retroactively less charitable, and does it affect the selflessness of current and future donations even though I'd be giving that money anyway? Is everyone who donates to charities working to prevent heart disease or suicide doing so for selfish reasons? If so, should we start taxing them since they're not really being charitable? Is Bean actually an animated pile of shit that has almost achieved literacy?

[Mr Bean]

I've donated to the JDRF for years and years and years, but I'm now engaged to someone diagnosed with juvenile diabetes when she was 12. Does this make my previous donations retroactively less charitable

No

does it affect the selflessness of current and future donations even though I'd be giving that money anyway?

Yes

Is everyone who donates to charities working to prevent heart disease or suicide doing so for selfish reasons?

Heart disease does not affect everyone. As for suicide that depends on exactly what portion of suicide preventing is being donated towards, suicide is no more universal than heart disease

should we start taxing them since they're not really being charitable?

Nothing I've said mentions anything about tax policy only morality.

[Losonti Tokash]

Hmm, yes, I could see how two of the leading causes of death in the US don't affect most people. Using your incredibly narrow definition of selfless acts, you have actually made it totally impossible for any act to be selfless (hey, I get a good feeling from helping wells get dug in Africa, after all), thus rendering the whole discussion pointless.

PS My JDRF donations don't change in their morality level because I started dating someone with diabetes.

PPS You're a shithead.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Perhaps ultimate selflessness isn't really a quality we should consider a precondition for moral behavior. It tends to be a distracting tangent and point of contention and competition.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Or maybe people should not get butt-hurt about what Bean is saying. His only point so far has been that "selflessness" is a sliding scale, not an absolute, and it is possible to be "more" or "less" selfless, while still acting in a generally selfless way. He is right, too ... the arguments he has made are well established in cognitive psychology, and it is a pretty standard pattern of human behavior. Just because some people got really offended by the idea doesn't invalidate his point. Like this:

Using your incredibly narrow definition of selfless acts, you have actually made it totally impossible for any act to be selfless (hey, I get a good feeling from helping wells get dug in Africa, after all), thus rendering the whole discussion pointless.

Which doesn't even address the point at all, but instead exaggerates the argument to a wild strawman about how selflessness as a concept is suddenly moot. Got to love the black and white fallacy.

[Losonti Tokash]

No, it's actually about how his personal definition is so ridiculous as to be unusable, but by all means continue to defend an almost literate moron who called a family who lost a child to cancer selfish because they donate money to cancer research in the hope that other families will be spared the same. But he doesn't consider donating money to heart disease prevention inherently selfish though I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't been affected by that one in any way.

[Mr Bean]

No, it's actually about how his personal definition is so ridiculous as to be unusable

I suggest you expand your readings a bit to the culture of India. There you might find two religions known as Hinduism and Buddhism that share the concept of Dāna. That of giving without expecting reward. The concept of charity only being possible when no return is expected or anticipated. To give your food to a beggar is Dāna. To bring that beggar back to work your fields in exchange for food is not. If you expand your search further you will find Judaism with the concept of Tzedakah which holds that second highest form of it is anonymously give donations to unknown recipients. If you wish I can provide links about the various Catholic writings about the concept of Charity and the morality of giving.

My "ridiculous personal definition" forms the heart of several religions statements about how to be moral when giving. It is one the "true" forms of charity in cognitive psychology as Ziggy pointed out. There is a science of morality and discovering a code of universal morality is one of those goals of science.

[Phantasee]

How does donating to cancer research not fall in line with any of those concepts, you fuckwit? Just shut the fuck up already.

[Civil War Man]

So does this Randian concept of charity extend to volunteering time, as well?

Or how about when money is donated to a specific charity that doesn't have a narrow focus?

As an example, one of my cousins was a premature birth. He's the only premie in my entire extended family. My aunt and uncle stayed at a Ronald McDonald House while he was in the hospital. Since the house was so helpful, my mom (who lives on the opposite side of the country) looked up local Ronald McDonald Houses and started volunteering at one. Now, she sometimes works with the parents of premies (these houses are almost always near children's hospitals), but more often the parents are there because their child has something like cancer.

So is it selfish for her to help the parents of cancer victims because her nephew was a premie, because she happens to be volunteering at a charity that helps both (among other things)? Does the fact that Ronald McDonald Houses are very decentralized, to the point that the only common factor between any two chosen at random is the name, change your answer to the last question? Would your answer change if she donated money, or food, or clothing instead of her time?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, then the very concept of charity becomes nearly impossible under your definitions, because it pretty much eliminates donations to any kind of umbrella charity that works on multiple related causes like, for instance, the Red Cross.

Bonus question: Social clubs like Rotary or Kiwanis are often involved with charities on top of the stuff they normally do. I've heard of Rotary clubs that, for instance, purchased prefab shelters for the victims of Katrina or the Haiti earthquake years back. Are the Rotarians that donate money to these selfish when they didn't specifically join the club because of their charitable work?

[JLTucker]

How does donating to cancer research not fall in line with any of those concepts, you fuckwit? Just shut the fuck up already.

I think we should all base our charitable donations from a religious standpoint.

[KhorneFlakes]

So Mr Bean, if I ripped your legs off and ate them in front of you, and then you donated to charity for prosthetic legs, it would be selfish, regardless of what other things might be involved, such as you wanting to donate to improve prosthetics, being in terrible pain, etc?

So I'm not allowed to donate to charity or research into things which will raise the quality of life for people without somehow being considered selfish?

Good to know. Good to know that you're a fucking idiot, that is. I haven't seen stupidity like this outside of "social justice" bloggers in a while.

[D.Turtle]

Why is doing something for (partly) selfish reasons bad? How does that diminish the good deed someone has done?

[Mr Bean]

How does donating to cancer research not fall in line with any of those concepts

Donating to fight a disease your and your family are at risk for is still Tzedakah but of the least forms. It is not however Dāna as it benefits you. Your still arguing emotion rather than logic Phant, you asked a question to something DW said on page one. I responded, you took offense. Fine I clarified and rather that began asking some serious questions about morality you just dropped ad hominem after ad hominem and failed to make any kind of even vaguely constructed argument or point.

Lets review what you've posted up until now, every single post

Wait wait wait, if they already survived their cancer, how are they being less charitable than someone who never had cancer? If my family gives to cancer research, general and specifically leukemia, are we less charitable than the neighbours because my sister had leukemia?

She had childhood leukemia. I'm not likely to get it,since I'm well last childhood. We donate to cancer research for the reasons Block said, so others don't suffer like she did.

Just because you're a cynical fuck doesn't mean everyone else is.

She died.

I'm young, single, and don't know what I'm doing beyond the next two months. No, I don't fear my children will have cancer because I don't even know when I'm getting married.

Also what 72 said. You're an idiot, Bean.

Jesus, you're a fucking cunt.

I'm not running anywhere, Mr Bean. I have nothing to say to you in this thread. You're a piece of shit that doesn't know when to shut the fuck up.

And the latest post, your "argument" if it could be called that is that your donation was in no way relation to the loss of your sister and had no infulence on your choice of charities.

Quoting D-Turtle post here will be helpful so I will do so.

Why is doing something for (partly) selfish reasons bad? How does that diminish the good deed someone has done?

This is the key stumbling block I've gone back to several times you can't or won't grasp.
Donating for selfish reasons is not bad
But donating for selfish reasons is not good either.

Depending on the morality system you ahead to it's anything from a neutral act to a lesser good deed as the giving was done with the expect of the return. Unless you intend to make the argument that the money donated towards research was not expected to be put towards the goal of Leukemia research. The size of the donation does not matter, if it is a charitable gift then it is or is not scale does not matter in a question of morality.

[Connor MacLeod]

Maybe you should reevaluate how you're trying to convey your argument then, because you apparently THINK you're reiterating the point Mike initially made (that the comparison was relative, both acts were equally charitable and good, it was just more charitable when you derived no direct benefit from it.) Because you are coming across to me (and apparently, to others) as treating it as an absolute, either/or situation.

That and the apparent attitude you're giving off - like you're in some sort of competition where you have to WIN THE DEBATE AT ALL COSTS to score points or some silly shit. Because you're definitely giving off that vibe as well.

[Mr Bean]

So does this Randian concept of charity extend to volunteering time, as well?

Rand was against charity in all forms CWM, selfish would offend her, selfless would horrify her.

So is it selfish for her to help the parents of cancer victims because her nephew was a premie, because she happens to be volunteering at a charity that helps both (among other things)? Does the fact that Ronald McDonald Houses are very decentralized, to the point that the only common factor between any two chosen at random is the name, change your answer to the last question? Would your answer change if she donated money, or food, or clothing instead of her time?

Did she ask to work specifically with the intent to work only with the premie areas of RMD, did she simply volunteer her time and work to the best of her ability? And no time is a thing just as much as money food or clothing is. For some people money is more valuable. than those things. If she donated herself or time expecting a return then she was acting selfishly.

Bonus question: Social clubs like Rotary or Kiwanis are often involved with charities on top of the stuff they normally do. I've heard of Rotary clubs that, for instance, purchased prefab shelters for the victims of Katrina or the Haiti earthquake years back. Are the Rotarians that donate money to these selfish when they didn't specifically join the club because of their charitable work?

Do they expect a return, if they expect a return then yes it is Selfish not selfless.

That and the apparent attitude you're giving off - like you're in some sort of competition where you have to WIN THE DEBATE AT ALL COSTS to score points or some silly shit. Because you're definitely giving off that vibe as well.

We are not having a debate, a debate requires two sides Connor and I'm by myself at here, at least CWM is attempting something.

[Civil War Man]

Did she ask to work specifically with the intent to work only with the premie areas of RMD, did she simply volunteer her time and work to the best of her ability? And no time is a thing just as much as money food or clothing is. For some people money is more valuable. than those things. If she donated herself or time expecting a return then she was acting selfishly.

They don't really work that way. Ronald McDonald Houses are basically like hostels or B&Bs for the families of patients, specifically newborns or small children, so they don't have to commute from home.

Do they expect a return, if they expect a return then yes it is Selfish not selfless.

I'm not sure how one would expect a return from shipping prefab shelters to Haiti.

Anyway, I think your problem is that you define selfishness so broadly that it also encompasses people who do it out of empathy. If a woman were to, for example, survive breast cancer, you'd call her selfish for donating to breast cancer research, even though she could just as well be supporting the research because she knows first-hand how horrible the condition is and doesn't want anyone else to go through what she did.

[Channel72]

Scale is irrelevant to the morality of the charitable action. Donating more money does not make it more good, it simply makes more. Donating blood can be called a morally good act as it is a donation, at best you hope someone else of your blood type is also donating but as your not payed for your time or blood (At least in this state) donating blood can be called a morally good act as it can be done without thought of repayment. But donating more blood is not a better act. It's simply the same act again. Donating more blood does not make it more good in other words. Thus donating money to fight a disease that has not impacted you or those you care for can be a morally good act. But donating more money is not more good.

What the fuck are you talking about? What you said doesn't even address my argument. I never said donating more money makes it "more good", and I'm not making a moral argument. I said donating a lot of money is the only way that your individual donation is likely to have any noticeable effect on the state of medical research.

Anyway, at this point you're outright ignoring the major issue here. You originally said:

Donating to help yourself is not an act most would call selfless.

So your argument is: Phantasee personally knew someone who died of Leukemia, and is therefore himself afraid of getting Leukemia, or afraid that someone else he knows will get Leukemia. Therefore, his donation to Leukemia research is out of self-interest.

And for the 3rd time now, your argument is bullshit because it assumes Phantasee actually thinks that his individual donation will have any noticeable effect on Leukemia research, or even lead to a cure in time to save him or anyone else. But unless he's donated millions of dollars, it's unlikely his donation will have any fucking effect. And I'm he sure he knows that. Everybody knows that. I've donated to medical research, but I'm not under any delusion that my individual donation will matter much.

Therefore, Phantasee's donation can't possibly be out of self-interest. It's just a way to "contribute", and "feel good about yourself." It's not out of self-interest motivated by fear of getting the disease.

You've never even addressed this, accept to blather about scale or something, and yet it undermines every fucking thing you've said in this thread.