https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/pete ... -altruism/Whereas most individuals generally only possess necessities for themselves and their families, institutions bound by the logic of capital accumulation collectively own virtually all the necessities that individuals must purchase in order to survive. That such an arrangement results in objectionable consequences should hardly be surprising. Here we see just one of them: capital will let [a] drowning stranger die unless it receives adequate payment.
Against Charity
Against Charity
-
enigmaT120
- Posts: 1240
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
- Location: Falls City, OR
Re: Against Charity
That last line is definitely one message I got from Atlas Shrugged. I was astonished at Rand's disdain for charity, which is doing anything without a profit motive.
Re: Against Charity
I think the initial premise is flawed. Inserting distance and a neutral medium of trade (money) into the equation changes it in an essential way. For instance, what if the child was drowning in front of you and you couldn't swim, but there was a pay-for-hire lifeguard on the scene who was willing to do it only if you gave him $50? OTOH, what if it wasn't the case that the child in front of you was drowning, maybe she just needed a warmer coat or some tutoring in order to do better on her college entrance exams, then what? What if in order to earn the money to pay the lifeguard, you had to burn the last extant copy of "Persuasion" and slaughter the last buffalo?
IOW, I think what you actually do in the situations in which you actually find yourself matters the most. I don't believe in the virtue of selfishness as promoted in the trite-romantic-device-laden novels of a certain author with a terrible hairdo, but I do believe in the charity-best-begins-at-home/do-the-work-in-front-of-you themes often found in the novels of Dickens. IOW, Scrooge erred on the side of selfishness rather than self-aware, self-care, but Mrs. Jellyby erred on the side of long-distance philanthropy while neglecting her own family. So, I don't agree with either of the suggestions in the article or with being strictly selfish either. I think when it comes to offering charity, like growing food, you should start at your own doorstep. I mean, even if you are surrounded by nothing but grouchy old wealthy people, if you give one of them a smile and a hug, then he might give away 100 turkeys. (Note: My philosophy on charity is clearly also somewhat based on the movies of Shirley Temple in addition to the novels of Dickens and Zola.)
IOW, I think what you actually do in the situations in which you actually find yourself matters the most. I don't believe in the virtue of selfishness as promoted in the trite-romantic-device-laden novels of a certain author with a terrible hairdo, but I do believe in the charity-best-begins-at-home/do-the-work-in-front-of-you themes often found in the novels of Dickens. IOW, Scrooge erred on the side of selfishness rather than self-aware, self-care, but Mrs. Jellyby erred on the side of long-distance philanthropy while neglecting her own family. So, I don't agree with either of the suggestions in the article or with being strictly selfish either. I think when it comes to offering charity, like growing food, you should start at your own doorstep. I mean, even if you are surrounded by nothing but grouchy old wealthy people, if you give one of them a smile and a hug, then he might give away 100 turkeys. (Note: My philosophy on charity is clearly also somewhat based on the movies of Shirley Temple in addition to the novels of Dickens and Zola.)
Re: Against Charity
fyi -- there is another thread about this subject matter: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3975&hilit=charity