Is Charity Immoral?

[Ego]

Most people are not zen masters. As it is in line with - or better: central to - buddhist thought, where this story comes from, one should help others in removing their suffering. This is the whole point of it.

How does a non-zen master learn to see things as, "maybe yes, maybe no," if the suffering of the lost horse is always removed by others? Is it not the suffering that drives home the lesson? Or, from the other direction, by removing the suffering do we remove the lesson entirely?

[7Wannabe5]

Is begging immoral?

[Felix]

How does a non-zen master learn to see things as, "maybe yes, maybe no," if the suffering of the lost horse is always removed by others? Is it not the suffering that drives home the lesson? Or, from the other direction, by removing the suffering do we remove the lesson entirely?

This assumes that suffering leads to insight. Given the amount of human suffering and the amount of insight so far, I think it is reasonable to try and remove some of the suffering. Also, sometimes suffering can work against insight - inducing depression for example.

Insight into the nature of things is the cause of non-suffering (in Buddhist thought, that is). Not suffering itself. If you are busy suffering, you have little time for insight.

Trying to remove suffering by causing suffering does sound counterproductive.

[Ego]

This assumes that suffering leads to insight.

I believe suffering can lead to insight. It does not necessarily (automatically) lead to it, but it can.

Given the amount of human suffering and the amount of insight so far, I think it is reasonable to try and remove some of the suffering. Also, sometimes suffering can work against insight - inducing depression for example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/magaz ... all&src=pm

Quote:

For 1,500 years of Japanese history, Buddhism has encouraged the acceptance of sadness and discouraged the pursuit of happiness -- a fundamental distinction between Western and Eastern attitudes. The first of Buddhism's four central precepts is: suffering exists. Because sickness and death are inevitable, resisting them brings more misery, not less. ''Nature shows us that life is sadness, that everything dies or ends,'' Hayao Kawai, a clinical psychologist who is now Japan's commissioner of cultural affairs, said. ''Our mythology repeats that; we do not have stories where anyone lives happily ever after.'' Happiness is nearly always fleeting in Japanese art and literature. That bittersweet aesthetic, known as aware, prizes melancholy as a sign of sensitivity.

This traditional way of thinking about suffering helps to explain why mild depression was never considered a disease. ''Melancholia, sensitivity, fragility -- these are not negative things in a Japanese context,'' Tooru Takahashi, a psychiatrist who worked for Japan's National Institute of Mental Health for 30 years, explained. ''It never occurred to us that we should try to remove them, because it never occurred to us that they were bad.''

The medical model of depression, by contrast, sees suffering as pathological and prescribes a pill in response

Insight into the nature of things is the cause of non-suffering (in Buddhist thought, that is). Not suffering itself. If you are busy suffering, you have little time for insight.

Trying to remove suffering by causing suffering does sound counterproductive.

I am certainly not suggesting that we should cause suffering. I am just not convinced that I would be better off if you had the ability to alleviate my suffering rather than allowing me to go through it.... allowing me to deal with it myself. Would you be robbing me of the ennobling experience?

[jacob]

I think the main problem/obstacle is that one-size-does-not-fit-all. Some learn from their mistakes and get stronger through adversity. Others do not.

What is needed is a decentralized solution for charity, similar to how capitalism is a decentralized solution to "resource allocation towards the most productive assets".

[Felix]

@ Ego:

My point is that the suffering is not the cause of the enlightening thought. Some people might take a bad experience and use that as an occasion to transcend their usual definitions of good and bad experiences. But that's up to the people. Enough people reach transcendence without trauma. Suffering is neither necessary nor directly helpful.

How to explain ...

An example would be Victor Frankl's "Man's search for meaning". He went to a Nazi concentration camp and saw the people close to him killed and burned. But yet he and many others managed to transcend this situation by finding a deeper inner strength to meet their circumstances. Does this imply that one should not have stopped the camps? No.

Enough people have reached transcendence through insight meditation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassana

There is no need for suffering in this.

@jacob: Hrnghnnnnffff ... damn ... Can't resist noting that capitalism has not decentralized resource allocation.

I think the need for formal charity is the wrong way to look at the problem. I see it as a symptom of a culture that promotes isolation over community and hence allows ignoring those who fall through the grid.

How to solve the problem is a hard question.

[Ego]

@ Ego:

My point is that the suffering is not the cause of the enlightening thought. Some people might take a bad experience and use that as an occasion to transcend their usual definitions of good and bad experiences. But that's up to the people. Enough people reach transcendence without trauma. Suffering is neither necessary nor directly helpful.

How to explain ...

An example would be Victor Frankl's "Man's search for meaning". He went to a Nazi concentration camp and saw the people close to him killed and burned. But yet he and many others managed to transcend this situation by finding a deeper inner strength to meet their circumstances. Does this imply that one should not have stopped the camps? No.

Enough people have reached transcendence through insight meditation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassana

There is no need for suffering in this.

That makes sense. There are situations where we must intervene if it is within our ability. It is a categorical imperative. A duty. Murder, rape, violence, and theft are simply wrong and should be stopped.

Most situations are not so clear cut. Often the costs and benefits to the recipient are not easy to weigh.

That said, I wonder if Frankl's message would have reached the world had he not gone through the traumatic experience. Perhaps he or someone like him may have come to the same insight simply through meditation.... but somehow I doubt it. I also doubt whether the insightful meditator would have reached the wide audience Frankl had without intermingling magical thinking into the lesson. We inherently value heuristic discovery over transcendent discovery, both in ourselves and in others. Experience is more valuable than theory. It is more authentic and less prone to being forgotten.

[Felix]

Yes, having a "I went through hell and came out for the better" story is probably more sellable and more interesting than "I meditated and became enlightened".

[Ego]

João had a stroke and as a result of the damage became what his doctor called "pathologically generous"

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ng/389531/

But Grafman was surprised to see the brain’s pleasure and reward circuits rev into high gear as well. “Our first impression,” Grafman says, “was that we might see some activation [in those circuits], just because usually when people give, they feel a little bit better. But we had no idea about the degree.”

Specifically, his team saw the brain’s mesolimbic system light up... Neuroscientists usually associate activity in these circuits—which many other species also have—with hedonistic delights like food and sex. ...

If giving feels so good, why don’t people do more of it? Part of the answer lies in the fact that other areas of the brain, like the frontal lobes, suppress the instinct for generosity at times. That sounds miserly of them, and maybe it is. But the frontal lobes help us see the bigger picture, and can alert us to the downsides of giving.

João’s case reveals what happens when the frontal lobes lose the ability to weigh in, allowing warm, fuzzy feelings to run amok. Like an Internet trunk line, it pipes in data from all over the brain, allowing the frontal lobes to suppress, in the service of a larger goal, some of the urges that arise.

[Dragline]

Interesting -- its the opposite of what happens when a brain injury causes someone to become unemotional about things and to lack personal preferences not based on reasoning.

In such cases, the subjects have a terrible time because they are almost incapable of making decisions, even simple things like what they should wear. Every decision requires a supreme effort and they instantly begin second-guessing themselves. They often become depressed and suicidal.

I think this was discussed in Thinking Fast and Slow or perhaps Predictably Irrational.

[Myakka]

So many very interesting takes on charity -- it's been enjoyable to read them now.

Charity is a tool. Like all other tools it can be used to really help another or it can be used otherwise; it can be highly moral or immoral. AND the key to making it be moral is attention (with the intent to be kind) to the particular thoughts and feelings and needs of the individual.

For instance, what prosaic needed more than food and presents was routine support for his schizophrenic mother.

And what most people need is a cultural system where it is okay to be poor and weak and imperfect. Personally, I believe that one of the most charitable acts is to give up our own routine criticisms of people who aren't our ideal. For it is from a place of accepting another with all their warts that one can connect to what that person may be needing and provide that with sensitivity.

I believe in charity that follows such a path, and don't think much of charity that does not.

[Dragline]

And what most people need is a cultural system where it is okay to be poor and weak and imperfect. Personally, I believe that one of the most charitable acts is to give up our own routine criticisms of people who aren't our ideal. For it is from a place of accepting another with all their warts that one can connect to what that person may be needing and provide that with sensitivity.

Elegantly stated. I fully subscribe to this sentiment, even if I don't embody it a lot of the time.

Or maybe why modern atheists see value in the philosophy of St. Augustine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBAxUBeVfsk

[fiby41]

Most charity tackles the symptoms than the causes of poverty.

Recent case in point: The earthquake in Nepal.

Now half of the destruction was caused by the landmass practically moving 3 feet south,but the other half was caused by turning a blind eye to building laws and regulations which probably saved a lot of money and provided a higher margin to the builders.

The number one long term infrastructure development that will be financed from funds is building newer shitty building in the place of the destructed ones and everything will return to normal and everybody will forget about it by the end of the month. But has the charity actually helped anyone? Has anyone learnt the lesson here?

Now war and natural calamities are the only two remaining ways of population control. By shipping in resources (food, medical aid, volunteers...) across the border, the people affected by the earthquake aren't helped at all but made more dependent. The number of people immigrating using the open borders policy into India make it clear that the economy wouldn't by able to provide for the ~5k deceased even if they had not died.

Consider the missionary which sent one hundred thousand Bibles there clogging up the airport emergency supplies queue. The Home Minister had to send them back with the comment "We don't eat Bibles here."

Were the missionaries acting out of any selfless interest in the first place?
Or just jump at an opportunity to propagate their religious ideologies with the insensitive side-effect of rubbing salt on wounds?

You have a guy in the street, he has no food, it is cold.

The dehumanizing comes from the fact that you are now effectively playing God for him. Today, by helping him, you have extended his suffering by a day while patting yourself on the back. Why not just legally adopt him and care for him then? If you are unwilling to adopt him, don't interfere in the natural course of things under the feel good pretense of having helped him. All you did was prolong his plight by one day. Instead of dieing today, he will suffer for one more day, thanks to you.

[Dragline]

Ok, Ebeneezer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYHmQT_7a2c

[Ego]

And what most people need is a cultural system where it is okay to be poor and weak and imperfect. Personally, I believe that one of the most charitable acts is to give up our own routine criticisms of people who aren't our ideal. For it is from a place of accepting another with all their warts that one can connect to what that person may be needing and provide that with sensitivity.

Elegantly stated. I fully subscribe to this sentiment, even if I don't embody it a lot of the time.

Or maybe why modern atheists see value in the philosophy of St. Augustine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBAxUBeVfsk

Absolutely! Yes, it is okay to be poor, weak and imperfect. Isn't the purpose of charity is to assign values (poor, weak, imperfect) and then impose a fix to those who don't measure up?

This is precisely the problem I have with it in a general sense. You say potato I say potato. Poor, weak and imperfect are culturally determined, and cultures are very different.

Many here like heuristics. I spent several months in South Africa and met a lot of really nice Americans and Europeans doing what nice people are supposed to do.... helping others. Virtually every traveler had their story of how they deloused pygmies or something similar. It got to the point where I wondered if they were speaking about humans or animals.

While there we met a Dutch girl who had volunteered at an orphanage up in Africa (I've forgotten which country) at a time when a big Amsterdam television station showed up to do an investigative report on how they were buying children from parents. I couldn't find a link but managed to find a few others in Cambodia and Ghana.

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/N ... ?ID=287937
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ys-madonna

The Dutch girl was angry because she wasted her months at the orphanage when she could have, as she said, been doing real good.

Read that Guardian piece then consider that nearly every tour of South Africa involves some sort of orphanage visit still today. Don't believe me? Google tours of South Africa.

The drive to prove our goodness is so strong it causes good people to do things they know are not good because they fulfill this need to prove goodness. It creates meaning. Might there be better ways to do that?

[fiby41]

Ok, Ebeneezer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYHmQT_7a2c

Bah, humbug! You can't reach me with your merry videos and elicit an emotional response!
Because I have flash disabled: viewtopic.php?t=6250

The drive to prove our goodness is so strong it causes good people to do things they know are not good because they fulfill this need to prove goodness. It creates meaning. Might there be better ways to do that?

What was the purpose of charity again if it is yet another item to be ticked off on an itinerary and to be bragged about amongst friends after being bought for a ticket price?

[Scrubby]

Now war and natural calamities are the only two remaining ways of population control. By shipping in resources (food, medical aid, volunteers...) across the border, the people affected by the earthquake aren't helped at all but made more dependent. The number of people immigrating using the open borders policy into India make it clear that the economy wouldn't by able to provide for the ~5k deceased even if they had not died.

Of course they are helped. It's cold at the moment, they have little food and have lost a large part the infrastructure they need to survive. That doesn't mean they will never be able to rebuild. Does your logic apply to any natural disaster in Western countries as well? Should we just let Americans or Europeans who are hit by storms, floods or whatever starve or freeze to death?

The dehumanizing comes from the fact that you are now effectively playing God for him. Today, by helping him, you have extended his suffering by a day while patting yourself on the back. Why not just legally adopt him and care for him then? If you are unwilling to adopt him, don't interfere in the natural course of things under the feel good pretense of having helped him. All you did was prolong his plight by one day. Instead of dieing today, he will suffer for one more day, thanks to you.

If he preferred to die he could easily kill himself. Clearly he doesn't.

[jennypenny]

I went to look for an old post of mine, and didn't realize we had two threads going about this topic: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5044

This conversation always depresses me. I can see not liking huge charities that are mostly about having a special color ribbon and a "walk." I don't like commercialized charity either. But if I have more than I need, and someone has less than they need, what's the big deal if I choose to share?

[Dragline]

Come on, jp, don't you know that you are supposed to conform to the norms of Homo Economicus? http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers ... omicus.asp

And if you don't conform to those norms, you deserve to be punished, right? Because your existence disrupts the Order of Efficiency, which is the Supreme Value. Charity has no place in the NORMS OF THE SUPREME VALUE OF EFFICIENCY. It's just that old kindness crap that only inferior, irrational sub-humans would subscribe to. Because in the perfected utopian future, we will rid humanity of these defects, by getting rid of said charitable sub-humans, if nothing else. Decrease the surplus population. Perfect the race. It's all good in the end.

Isn't that the true religion of man?

[fiby41]

I can see not liking huge charities that are mostly about having a special color ribbon and a "walk."

The color ribbon charity you are referring to gets half their money from suing organizations which use their copyrighted symbols. They are "breast cancer awareness charity" ("Hey did you know there is something called breast cancer?") and nothing you donate will go to actual research but the relatives of the founder who get inflated pays.

But if I have more than I need, and someone has less than they need, what's the big deal if I choose to share?

You certainly can. But by "sharing" you will be making a chronic illness worse not better. How do you chose in what way your charity helps the recipient, if at all, and who 'deserves' to receive it if there are N number of equally 'worthy' (or shall I say 'needy'?) recipients? What you can do is simply not enough. And worse, you don't know what is best for the recipient. "Giving a helping hand" without going the full length is just plain mockery of the circumstances the recipient is in. The fact that people pray to a God asking him to favor their own interest instead of their neighbor's shows that they do that trust the judgement of God.

There is simply not enough resources for everyone to have what they need. Moreover, "what people need" is not something static. Everyone's expectations keep auto-adjusting to surrounding on the hedonic treadmill unconsciously; and if those expectations aren't met the next time, it leads to unhappiness. Most of evil is done with good intentions.

--

@dragline: You might want to look at the thread title again. We are discussing moral, not financial, implication of charity with the interest of the potential charity recipient in mind. Here charity in the general sense means not just giving out money but includes time and energy spent: volunteering for a non-profit NGO, visiting an old age home, etc.

--

To wit, I could say legalizing prostitution will help the chronically poor with no skills more that charity by creating safer work conditions and make it an economic transaction where value is created for both sides involved. Is it revolting?
Subjugating the recipient by you act of benevolence is okay but letting him provide for himself on his own isn't?