Is Charity Immoral?

[secretwealth]

Oscar Wilde married for money and lived a notoriously high-consumption lifestyle before becoming impoverished after being imprisoned. So he is something of a champagne socialist.

Now, I'm not saying the essay is worth completely discrediting, but context is important.

[jacob]

Since I grew up in a high-tax Scandinavian welfare state, I have a non-American perspective on charity. Basically, it's supposed to be handled by the government (and it is!) and thus "the people" are not really under any/much moral obligation to do much of anything about charity causes.

I remember "contributing to/supporting a good cause" as being much less of a selling point for buying consumer goods than is currently the case in the US. It's not that it doesn't exist. It just takes a significant backstage (you have to search for those goods). (Maybe things have changed in the past 10 years?!)

Of course, the idea that welfare itself keeps people on welfare is widely considered ... so I suppose that's the same construct.

[thebbqguy]

As for welfare keeping people in welfare...I have seen many examples of that. A lot of people would rather sit at home and play video games than look for a job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart. A lot of other people would rather not pay for insurance and then let those that do pay for insurance subsidize their emergency room visits too.

My family needed to use Food Stamps for a short time in the 1970's (a couple of months). I also was a "free lunch" kid for 3 or 4 years in elementary school. Neither of those situations had anything to do with not working hard. My family is one of the hardest working families I know. We were farmers and one summer of drought will through a monkey wrench in your livelihood. For us, it was 20% interest rates during the Carter administration. The Prime rate was 21.5% in 1980.

Here's some background on those years: http://spectator.org/archives/2008/10/0 ... -the-worst

We turned it around by spending less, growing our own food, my mom making our clothes, using hand-me-downs, borrowing from relatives and neighbors, etc.

I personally think it's a question of personal integrity. I don't know what the solution is politically though, because there are those that really do need the help. But it should be "help" and not the sole source of income. I know someone who hasn't worked in more than a decade, but who is perfectly capable.

It frustrates me a great deal. Overall I have mixed feelings about it all.

[Felix]

The cleft palate is different IMO because 1) the child isn't responsible for the condition, and 2) fixing it once fixes it for good.

Those two conditions are true. But by donating the money to fix it are we:

1) Removing the shame or guilt we might be feeling for luring away their native-born physicians, those who would have fixed it in a functional system.

2) Removing any shame or guilt we might be feeling for systematically exploiting the parents, community, and nation through trade.

3) Removing the motivation to create external pressure on the society to solve it for themselves.

4) Removing the internal pressure to solve the problem themselves.

In short, are we enabling everything to stay the way it is? Are we creating a situation where we get to play the God of cleft palates?

Sounds like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M



In general, I don't like putting ideology before basic human decency, so I would disagree with Zizek, Rand, Wilde, and Supply Side Jesus.

[jennypenny]

I think what Wilde means: Having sympathy with thought would be staying principled and sticking to your utopian/apocalyptic vision, while giving in to alleviating immediate suffering means sacrificing the higher good to base emotions.

Ah, I get it. Tough love is hard.

Or, if acting benevolently toward my fellow man today causes (in my opinion) damage to future fellow men, should I do it?

After thinking about it, I'm going to say *usually* no. It's ok from a macro standpoint to set up policies that ensure a positive result in the future. On a micro scale, it's ok for us to choose to alleviate some suffering or act benevolently toward a person or group of people. Sometimes the higher good is showing compassion in a particular situation. It's what makes us human and not robots. We can also see where the macro policy is failing in a particular situation and remedy it.

In my volunteer work, we're not supposed to get involved with the people we're helping, and we're not allowed to give them money. It's a good policy. Occasionally though, I choose to ignore the policy and help people when I think it's warranted. If I slip them a few $20's, is that wrong? Maybe what they need most that day is to know that someone cares not just about the urban poor, but about them? It humanizes them.

I also think that charity (like many things) can be too big. I don't like large-scale corporate giving and commercialized charity (like the Starbucks example). Small-scale charity work where the donor and recipient interact with each other (soup kitchens, habitat for humanity) is rewarding for both of the parties involved.

[secretwealth]

When I went to Guatemala, I went to a fair trade organic coffee company, which bought beans from local landowners, processed them, and sold them abroad (Germany was their biggest buyer). The operation was managed by a young woman with very good English, whom I spoke to for over an hour. Turns out she went to school in America thanks to one of those charity programs that you saw advertised on t.v. She had a sponsor in Alaska who sent her $20/mo. for clothing, school supplies, etc. throughout her youth. Her father was an abusive alcoholic and her mother sold goods on the street. Now, as an adult, she was managing this cooperative for her home town and was expanding it to include an organic ink production business and an organic aloe farm.

I was floored.

I had never seen just how profoundly effective the kindness of strangers could have a positive impact, not only on this woman's life but on her community. Thanks to her education and business acumen, she was helping her community benefit from globalization, instead of being victims to it.

Since then, I have wanted to donate to some type of similar program, preferably to Guatemala, whose people I developed a real affection for. I've wanted something non-denomonational that preferably focuses on children. The best I've found so far is http://www.safepassage.org but I'm still looking for a better alternative to donate to. Any recommendations would be appreciated.

So in this conversation of mass-appeal essayists on both sides of the political spectrum who are or were inflation-adjusted millionaires (Wilde, Zizec, Rand), I'd just like to point out that, whatever the statistics or your personal ideology says, a bit of personal experience with the efficacy (or inefficacy as the case may be) of something like charity will give you a much better answer to the question of its immorality than yet another left vs. right debate on the internet.

[Ego]

I've asked this question a few times because I really struggle with it.

Jenny, I get your point about humanizing and I think that is exactly what makes it so difficult for me. If I have the power to make someone who feels dehumanized feel a little more human, that act feels good and right to me. Many are now saying that the act not only feels good to me, it is good for me. http://video.pbs.org/video/2365029352/ (beginning at about 6 minutes)

But then I come home and ponder it for a while. It feels good. Everyone says it good. But I wonder if I'm not at least partially responsible for their problems in the first place. Is dehumanization a natural way to feel when living in a particular way? Is it a good motivator to change? Am I removing that motivation by humanizing them? I don't know.

SW, your example is a good one. It is working, it is empowering, and it is run by a local. I've seen so many of these that did not have those characteristics. I think I've said before that the only program like this that I felt was actually good all around was the WWF gorilla protection program. Now that I write that I think maybe I liked it because the subject was helpless (literally) gorillas rather than helpless (?) humans.

The word "empowering"... that even bothers me. As if someone from outside can (or should) give or imbued power on another. If they didn't earn it, is it real power or is it a song-and-dance we both go through to get what we want out of it? I don't know.

[Felix]

I think the baseline is (or at least should be) that people are fed, warm, and treated with dignity. Humanizing, or empowering, then, is getting them back to that baseline or close enough so they can take the last steps on their own. I don't see any merit in having them away from that state. Usually the argument is that it builds character of some sort. I tend to worry what kind of character that deprivation of basics actually builds (a beaten dog comes to mind) or why such a character needs to be built in the first place. It seems like some perversely motivated psychological engineering experiment.

As a sidenote:

Wilhelm Reich's "The mass psychology of facism" is enlightening in this regard. In it, Freud's disciple and author of psychoanalysis classic "Character analysis" Reich goes into how an institutionalised and internalised sense of unease in one's own body, prevalent in modern societies, makes people angry, agressive, tense, frightened and vulnerable to manipulative leaders and utopian promises, culminating in the conclusion that facism is an expression of the general psychological condition of a population. The book, unfortunately, was published in Germany in 1933. His books were burned. Reich fled to Soviet Russia. His books were burned there, too. So he fled to the US. There, his books were also burned (in the late 60s/early 70s if I recall correctly) and he died in prison. He became crazy in his later years, but I can't help but think that a book that says something worth burning by three different states is worth reading.

P.P.S.
This theatre piece by Robert Anton Wilson is some sort of artistic interpretation of Reich s ideas:

Wilhelm Reich in hell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prY-XUo3o1Q

For some, I may be discrediting the idea with this link. But anomie will like it.

[Ego]

I think the baseline is (or at least should be) that people are fed, warm, and treated with dignity. Humanizing, or empowering, then, is getting them back to that baseline or close enough so they can take the last steps on their own. I don't see any merit in having them away from that state. Usually the argument is that it builds character of some sort. I tend to worry what kind of character that deprivation of basics actually builds (a beaten dog comes to mind) or why such a character needs to be built in the first place. It seems like some perversely motivated psychological engineering experiment.

That sounds like a kind, decent baseline. It begs the question though, who is responsible for maintain it? And how do we impose it on those who desire a different baseline? And who decides what constitutes dignity?

Again, "to humanize" and "to empower" are done by one person (or society) to another. There is a person being humanized, a person being empowered. If someone humanizes or empowers me, I gain something. Do I not also lose something? By having been humanized do I not lose at least a little humanity to the humanizer? By having been empowered do I not give up some power to the person doing the empowering? Also, do I not miss out on the strength I would have gained by the trial. Character, by its very nature, is the result of challenge.

That Randian point of view bothers many. From the other side Wilde might ask if the half-measure, amateur, volunteer, charity derived symptom-treatments don't somehow remove the societal moral imperative to solve the underlying problems.

Those few factors make the calculation of whether to help another a difficult one. Add the wildcard of unintended consequences and it becomes spectacularly difficult (at least for me). Contrary to how I might make it sound, I haven't always chosen to refrain from giving or helping. I am just troubled by it when I do give or help. My default setting is to refrain.

[jennypenny]

But then I come home and ponder it for a while. It feels good. Everyone says it good. But I wonder if I'm not at least partially responsible for their problems in the first place. Is dehumanization a natural way to feel when living in a particular way? Is it a good motivator to change? Am I removing that motivation by humanizing them? I don't know.

Why is it your responsibility to motivate them?

[Felix]

If someone humanizes or empowers me, I gain something. Do I not also lose something? By having been humanized do I not lose at least a little humanity to the humanizer? By having been empowered do I not give up some power to the person doing the empowering?

Well, depends on how you define these things. How do you lose humanity or power by going back to food, shelter and dignity? Dont you gain humanity through humanizing and power by empowerment, pretty much by definition?

Which character do you gain by having to miss basics like dignity, shelter and food? It seems to be an adaptation to a cruel, uncaring and inhumane environment, but the result may well be that you are probably yourself becoming a bit more cruel, uncaring and inhumane.

Also, calling human misery incentives seems like dubious economic whitewashing to me. I would think one is better prepared to work against lousy conditions with a full stomach than an empty one. Usually, the people benefiting from charity have suffered enough.

So I dont really buy into that Randian argument.

Nor do I accept Wilde s. The goal, in my view, is to get people to baseline. And the most practical way seems to be to adapt the existing system by making it more bearable, eventually lifting everyone to baseline. It seems a lot more practical and kind than waiting for a functioning socialism or whatever other utopia one believes in to manifest. Saving and investing instead of waiting for a universal basic income which may never appear. Wildes approach to me appears like overthinking getting in the way of simple direct acts of kindness.

Yes, there are realistic long term approaches better suited to actually help needs which can be a better use of effort and time. Not all charity is equally effective. I think that is where thought comes in. But there has to be some measure in that, it cant result in inaction.

[Ego]

But then I come home and ponder it for a while. It feels good. Everyone says it good. But I wonder if I'm not at least partially responsible for their problems in the first place. Is dehumanization a natural way to feel when living in a particular way? Is it a good motivator to change? Am I removing that motivation by humanizing them? I don't know.

Why is it your responsibility to motivate them?

I guess this gets to the heart of the matter. I don't believe it is my responsibility to motivate them. But I guess if I think about it I do have certain responsibilities to human beings for the simple fact that they are human beings. I can't say that I've thought it all the way through, but I just feel it to be true. If someone were enslaved and I had it in my power to free them, I would feel responsible to do so. I guess that's not completely consistent with what I've said above..... and why I'm troubled by it.

That sounds like a kind, decent baseline. It begs the question though, who is responsible for maintain it? And how do we impose it on those who desire a different baseline? And who decides what constitutes dignity?

There's that word again. Why aren't we each responsible for our own? And if we have more than enough feel free to help someone else if we wish without feeling responsible to help?

In this respect I guess I am more concerned with the consequences of the help than with the intention of the giver. The distinction between feeling free or feeling responsible may be important from a political standpoint but it's not one that bothers me either way. In both cases the giver is biased toward giving even when unintentional harm is possible or likely. The social approbation and the internal jolt produced by their own generosity propels them toward erring on the side of giving or acting rather than withholding or refraining from acting.

[jennypenny]

Yeah, I removed the second part of my response because it didn't quite capture what I meant.

I agree with Felix that there is a baseline that we all owe each other as humans. Beyond that, I'm not sure. I think personally I strive to be benevolent without being an enabler.

[Ego]

Well, depends on how you define these things. How do you lose humanity or power by going back to food, shelter and dignity? Dont you gain humanity through humanizing and power by empowerment, pretty much by definition?

That's a careful choice of words. There is a difference between "going back" to those things and being given them.

Which character do you gain by having to miss basics like dignity, shelter and food? It seems to be an adaptation to a cruel, uncaring and inhumane environment, but the result may well be that you are probably yourself becoming a bit more cruel, uncaring and inhumane.

"To miss" is passive. Change that to "failed to provide for oneself" basics like dignity, shelter and food, and it becomes at least possible that the adaptation that might occur (or be inhibited by help) might be the motivation to provide those things in the future. Granted, people don't always fail to provide. Sometimes they are victims.

Also, calling human misery incentives seems like dubious economic whitewashing to me. I would think one is better prepared to work against lousy conditions with a full stomach than an empty one. Usually, the people benefiting from charity have suffered enough.

That's true. It is also true that one is less likely to work toward the next full stomach if they didn't have to provide the last one. An empty stomach is unarguably the first human motivator (okay maybe the second).

Edit: That made me sound more Randian and less compassionate than I'd like. Ugh. But it's true.

Yes, there are realistic long term approaches better suited to actually help needs which can be a better use of effort and time. Not all charity is equally effective. I think that is where thought comes in. But there has to be some measure in that, it cant result in inaction.

I agree that it can't result in complete inaction. Sadly, I think there is more cheerleading of the do-gooders and more feel-good show-off charity than actual, effective, try-hard-to-solve-tough-problems action taking place. Can you imagine a good-deed without a ribbon cutting?

[Felix]

I think all of this goes back to the root issue. What are the negative side-effects of charity? I still don't think that motivation is the problem for someone who cannot get basic food and shelter - hence my choice of words. (We could open the entire social justice issue here, but I think we shouldn't.) But I understand the "system enabling" problem. Do I enable a bad system by charity? I still think that I make it more bearable for those who fall through the cracks. I don't really change the underlying system either way, I think.

Charity to show off is a two-sided sword. It gets self-absorbed people who would never do anything charity-wise to participate. It's sad that this -by its nature- gets more press than the actual work. It kind of taints the whole thing.

I find this argument interesting:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_t ... wrong.html

[jennypenny]

I've worked at 3 non-profits...

A discussion about letting charities grow by working with more overhead is worth having, but Pallotta is the wrong guy. He plays fast and loose with the facts to make his argument. He is probably hurting his own cause.

Charity at any level is a two-sided sword. Many celebrities show up at an events solely for the publicity while the charity exploits the celebrity to increase their donations. I don't see how that's different than a deep pocket who donates for the tax breaks, or a politician or business exec who sits on the board of a charity to further their own reputation. People donate (or become 'members') at zoos and museums for the free admission. Many people give to their own churches or school fundraisers to improve their social standing.

You may think that's a harsh assessment, but it's the truth. For example, churches switched to automatic debits to encourage regular giving from parishoners. It seemed like a brilliant revenue move. The problem was that people no longer had anything to drop into the collection plate. They appeared to be giving nothing. People complained. They didn't mind signing up for automatic donations, but they didn't want to look bad. Now envelopes have a place to mark an automatic donation and parishoners drop empty envelopes into the collection plate to save face. It's not just churches either--that's just an easy example.

Most donors give because they receive something of value in return. JMHO

[Ego]

I think all of this goes back to the root issue. What are the negative side-effects of charity? I still don't think that motivation is the problem for someone who cannot get basic food and shelter - hence my choice of words. (We could open the entire social justice issue here, but I think we shouldn't.) But I understand the "system enabling" problem. Do I enable a bad system by charity? I still think that I make it more bearable for those who fall through the cracks. I don't really change the underlying system either way, I think.

Charity to show off is a two-sided sword. It gets self-absorbed people who would never do anything charity-wise to participate. It's sad that this -by its nature- gets more press than the actual work. It kind of taints the whole thing.

I find this argument interesting:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_t ... wrong.html

He wants to take all of the worst elements of charity and expand them. He wants to perfect the tricks and gimmicks designed to produce guilt-trips. He wants five hundred thousand dollar a year Stanford grads as charity CEOs who push the fight to the next level of expertise, all the while fighting among one another for that same 2% of GDP. That additional expertise would focus even more high powered Behavioralist-advertisers on the givers to ensure that they have engendered a feeling of having accomplished something more than paying his and his staff's exorbitant salary.

He wants to make charity more professional. We already have that. Government. Everything else is amateur for a reason that I believe is more than Calvinism. It is amateur because those who have had their hands in charity work or charity employment know that there is almost always a giant facade in front of small results. And those small results are almost always produced by people who would produce them regardless of the size of the facade or the salary of the CEO.

[Felix]

I'm not familiar with Pallotta, I just thought the argument was worth thinking about, not that I agree with it. It seems like an instance of the end justifying the means. The charity for publicity thing is an interesting subject. I have read in Pinker's "How the mind works" the idea that charity donations from an evolutionary psychology perspective are ways to show off how wealthy you are, similar to a sports car, jewelry or a big house. He figured that it would improve charities' donations a lot if the show-off benefit and general "sexiness" of charity -we all know what evolutionary psychology is all about - is increased somehow. Maybe sell overpriced sports cars with the charities' logos on them? It works very well in fashion. Basically, overpriced luxury goods may be the place to go, then, taking Zizek's point to the extreme.

Highly paid business executives would then run charities in a way similar to other fashion brands?

Maybe that's where it's heading right now.

I'm still of the opinion that charity should be primarily about helping people, the whole consumerization of charity still makes me feel queasy.

[jennypenny]

I'm not familiar with Pallotta

There's no reason you should be. I just know him because he was a target of mine before Bloomberg Let's just say he's very good at massaging the data. And there's a reason he starts every speaking engagement with his personal history--he's been playing the victim for years. It's a common strategy among non-profits, but he overplays it. He has the audience feeling sorry for him for being a gay father of triplets before he even starts talking about non-profits. That's why I think he's the wrong guy to try and initiate this discussion.

I'm still of the opinion that charity should be primarily about helping people, the whole consumerization of charity still makes me feel queasy.

I have the same feelings.

Bigger charities also tend to swallow up the charity money in their location which hurts smaller or fledgling charities.

[Chad]

As with most complex issues charity is probably both moral and immoral.

As Secretwealth's example points out it can easily be moral and beneficial for society. But, then you have the decade of welfare...and not so much.

This question relates to one of the issues we have discussed a lot on here, the lack of community. Charity used to come from people you knew. This meant it's form was more appropriate and focused on what you really needed, and it came with "encouragement."