We're all Terrible People

[Hamster at Dawn]

I do have to agree with you. Someone handed me a sponsorship form the other day and at the top it said "£2 can feed a starving child for a day" I thought that sounded like a good cause and then I read next to it "£10 could pay for a volunteer to give a lonely ederly person company for a day" I literally thought "WTF?" It was almost like an incentive to give them less money. Also it clearly said "volunteer". Why do they need £10 for a volunteer?

Furthermore, what is it with sponsoring people to do things for charity? Why can't I just give money to charities that I think are important when I have money that I want to give? I appreciate the effort but if you really want to help then go and volunteer in a third world country rather than looking down on us for not sitting in a bath of baked beans.

Final point: I don't give money to a lot of charities since I see them advertising themselves so much. If you're going to spend all my cash on TV ads that make people feel guilty about themselves then why should I give you anything? Rant over.

 

[TimbukTurnip]

I partly agree with the OP, but on the topic on saving animals from extinction: I would give money to the organisation trying to save them from dying off. Theres something like 6.8 billion people in the world, compared to say, pandas, whos population is between 1000 and 2000. Humans will die from terrible quality of life, but there will always be more humans. And try as we might, it will be a long, long time before poverty and terrible conditions are removed from the world. Short of a replicator type machine, like those in star trek, they might never be removed. But the death of an entire species is a terrible thing.

 

[Caligulove]

I hate human beings, so I would much rather pay for the dog to be awesome.

I feel sorry for you...

 

[BloodyThoughts]

Since I am a product of a fish and a tree, I can say the humans get on my nerve. No damn way am I giving you 10 bucks to blow off, when you could be using that and everyone elses 10 bucks on important matters.

 

[Trace of Legacy]

I hate human beings, so I would much rather pay for the dog to be awesome.

So much this, as I often say: "I would sacrifice a thousand human babies, just to make sure one dog lived a happy life"

I have way more respect for animals than humans.

But this isn't about animals its about charities so if I had to I would give to training the seeing eye dog, because the blind person has it tougher than the children in Africa.

I would rather help 1 life that needs it, then help 10 that takes it for granted.

 

[Enigmers]

If a race is that stupid to move to a area with no food and then decides it would be a good idea to breed like goddamn rabbits then they really do deserve to starve.

Congratz on being the first one to make a racist remark on this thread! I hope you realise how retarded you sound. Just so you know, if you were born into that country, even if you retained your superior genetic makeup, you would do the exact same thing.

He's not being racist. He's not saying "Africans are stupid because they reproduce like jackrabbits and then starve" he's saying "If you reproduce like jackrabbits and then starve, congratulations, you're an idiot."

Here's why donating is a gray area: it's because, from the victim's point of view, they did nothing to end up in whatever predicament they're in; for the potential donator, they didn't do any harm to the victim and shouldn't have any obligation to help them.
Think of that what you will.

I'd be more likely to donate to food drives than to "gib mony pls" charities because food drives are literally "here is food it is going places," I know someone who needs it will eat it. Even if the food gets stolen before it gets where it's going, well, who would steal food? Hungry, poor people.

 

[R1CK_D0M]

I hate human beings, so I would much rather pay for the dog to be awesome.

this. and I'm afraid of dogs, too...

 

[Czech Woods]

a society is judged by the way it treats their animals.

either by ghandi or francis of asisi. i cant remember which

i personally - if i do charity - always give to animal shelters.

 

[Chrono180]

To me, the sheer number of charities is a paradox. Surely, if you had money that you felt like giving to a worthy cause, you would give it to the most worthy cause? Now there will be some disagreement over what is exactly the most worthy cause, but many, many, (I'd say the vast majority) of charities are easily seen as not being as beneficial as others.

For example. Note: Please try and take the following argument rationally. Seeing eye dogs: Ok good use of money I guess. Helps improve the quality of life of blind people and most certainly money better spent that buying a foot massage machine. But seriously? Compare the value of your charity.

1. $100 towards the seeing eye dog foundation. Your money pays for a fraction of the training of 1 dog that would slightly improve the quality of life of a blind person.
2. $100 towards starving children. You probably save the lives of multiple children and vastly increase their quality of life.

Why, when presented with these two options, would anyone choose the dog?

I'm constantly perplexed by animal charities. People giving money to them should just straight out say they value the continued existence of that particular species far more than human lives. Or that they consider a blind person having a seeing eye dog far more important than human lives.

This can even be extended further.Imagine you could save 10$ by walking to a supermarket 1km away or just buy a few items at a corner store near you. I'm sure many people would do this, but isn't that sort of the same as denying a starving child food, when you could have donated that 10$ to charity?

It's obvious that we, as a race, have somehow evolved to only display altruistism or sympathy when we are directly confronted with the problem. That's how we so quickly feeling sorry for pandas and then people.

The best amoung us is, by their ignoring of other people's plight, committing crimes that would land you many years in jail is those people happened to be near you. For all you spiteing those who leave their children to starve while they go out drinking and get criminal sentences for it, are you really so different?

Please no captain obvious for saying this, but you can now see why We are all Terrible People. (especially you, you know who you are)

*note I did make a somewhat similar topic about a year ago, but I wanted some more opinions.

Wow, talk about hypocrisy. If you really believed what you are saying, you wouldn't be on this forum because you wouldn't have a computer. Instead, you would be donating almost everything you make to whatever charity you favor. Until you are willing to do that, please stop trolling.

Let me get your point, you seem to be saying that if someone doesn't donate to the "right" charity, they are horrible people. That is one of the worst things I have ever heard. By your logic, people shouldn't be allowed to help anyone that doesn't "deserve" help, only those who you deem "worthy" of help. What right do you have to play dictator to the world?


And yes, I am different. I have never created a child I would be unable to care for. I do this by NOT HAVING SEX. If more people would NOT HAVE SEX when they can't afford children, then we wouldn't have this problem of overpopulation. Admittedly, there might be a few cases where people honestly don't know about how babies are made, but that's a separate issue relating to the school systems.

Also, I am pretty sure that in the US (not sure about other places) you don't have to help people in need. In fact, I seem to recall that if you try to help someone and they get injured (such as if you fracture a rib while giving CPR), you could be sued for damages. Thus, it makes more sense to ignore people's suffering than it does to help them.

 

[WayOutThere]

I wish Markness hadn't stressed donating to the right charity. As correct as he is that is not how I would have approched explaining this matter.

There is a lot of text here.

Spoiler

I think caring about something and supporting something is noble

yep, you're right there

if that's all you can afford

Its especially noble if you're giving all you can afford.

But I don't think it's right to tell people what they should care about.

I do. People should care about reducing suffering as much as possible.

Instead of complaining about people not spending money where YOU think it's deserved

I have good reason for saying where money is most deserved. This is not a subjective matter. It is one to be decided by philosophical discourse.

I'm an absolute teleologist/consequentialist, my ethics specifies the greatest good as that which reduces suffering and increases happiness the most. I can share how I reached that conclusion if you like.

Imagine how much the government could spend on local problems such as healthcare, poverty, environmental conservation if they got any of the millions of dollars the churches make each year.

could not agree with you any fucking more here

Also saying that someone is terrible for choosing to help train guide dogs over save starving children is wrong.

Giving at all is good so I would not call some who chooses to donate to help train guide dogs terrible for doing so. All I'm saying is that that money should go to where it can do the most good.

People that care about problems in their own country that they see everyday are not worse than people that care about problems overseas

They're not in as morally sound territory. They are less good; not worse.

Caring about that is no less important than caring about anything else happening.

If others are suffering more than them than yes, caring about them is less important. Again, this is cold,hard logic we're talking about.

So your saying saving Africans is more worthwhile because it's better value for money? Is that what you look for in a charity?

What dude? Saving 50 lives is more important than saving one lives. That is all he is saying as far as I can tell.

I'm not saying supporting one thing is any better than supporting another thing.

You're not saying that but I am. Supporting "The Save Little African Children Foundation" (I just made that up) is better that supporting "The Save The Goldfish Foudation" (that one too). Supporting both is good but supporting the latter is better.

I just think that you are incorrect in saying that people who donate to charities you don't feel strongly about are terrible.

He's not exactly saying that. There are specific charites that are more morally worth supporting than others. Donating to any charity is good.

Just appreciate that some people feel something and are willing to try and make a difference.

Cold, hard reason says people are terrible if they don't donate to the point where they reduce themselves to the sustenience level.

That's the problem with utilitariansim; there is no such thing as going above and beyond the call of duty.

instead of presuming your a better person than everyone else.

Uh, which he never did...

Spoiler

I just want to say that I really hate it when people use "We are all" in threads like this. It's a huge pet peeve. Stop trying to guilt people up and do something if you think everything is so bad.

He's not trying to guilt you into anything. He's stating a serious philosophical argument that applies to all of us. It's nothing more than cold, hard logic.

I've never given to an animal charity. Only food drives and the salvation army. And Unicef.

Ah, but I bet you're still living well above the sustenance level. The whole animal charity thing is an important point of his but it's not what the argument is all about.

Also, don't forget that not everyone has money to spare.

Those people are off the hook (more or less) as they are living at the sustenance level. Giving money to others would not reduce their suffering more than spending the money on themselves would reduce their own suffering.

Not everyone likes giving to charity, even if they do have money to spare. Not giving money doesn't make you a bad person. There is lots of gray area and wiggle room.

No there is not "wiggle room". If you spend money to buy yourself a foot massager that could have saved a human life you are a bad person. Period.

Amen. This is a democracy. I don't need to donate shit. Its nice if I do.

No, you don't need to donate "shit" and it is nice if you do but none of that means you escape from being a bad person.

We're all awful people. If this is true, then being 'awful' is the average state of being.

For people living in first-world countries, yep, pretty much. That is exactly what the title states.

Spoiler

normalization of activities creates acceptability.

Just because an activity is acceptable doesn't make it right. If we were all Nazis who went out an slaughtered Jews regularly than came home to boast about it that an acceptable activity (in that culture) but not a right one (in any culture).

Charity only feeds the weak

NO, not in the case of Africa and third-world contries (the ones most in need of our help)
There is nothing these people can do to escape poverty
NOTHING
These people are not poor because they are weak they're poor because of where they were born; end of story.
The argument is iffy within first world contries but it is plain wrong anywhere else.
(see further thoughts on this matter a bit below)

If I had to I would give to training the seeing eye dog, because the blind person has it tougher than the children in Africa.

the fuck?
how in the world so?

I would rather help 1 life that needs it, then help 10 that takes it for granted.

Exactly how do you figure a dying child in Africa would take your donation for granted?
Are you being serious?

Since I am a product of a fish and a tree, I can say the humans get on my nerve. No damn way am I giving you 10 bucks to blow off, when you could be using that and everyone elses 10 bucks on important matters.

What makes you so sure the people who recieve charity waste it? I can understand not wanting to give money to a drunk who as relapsed ten times over but what makes you think there aren't plenty of honest, hardworking people out there who won't put you charity to genuinely good use?

I hate human beings, so I would much rather pay for the dog to be awesome.

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for him as well.

Why don't you try asking this woman what she thinks before you start spouting more claptrap OP?
http://www.dambisamoyo.com/

Now, I'm one of the first people to advocate the free market (I think that what you're post is about) especially as that would fit right into the "teaching a man to fish" category but this argument still fails because we haven't even been putting our effort into that. The efforts of this one wonderful lady hardly save us from being terrible people.
Again, correct me if I misunderstood your point.

I think the RICH people are the terrible ones. Celebrities always go 'donate! donate!' and yet I don't see them giving up half of their wealth or anything. If every celebrity, sports star, etc. gave a million dollars each, places like Haiti could be rebuilt (barring the abuse of the government but that's another topic).

Of all the people who do not give the rich are the worst but the rest of us are guilty too.

Charity cannot solve hunger.

Maybe but you're looking at this from too narrow of a perspective. Strait charity is not all we can do and it is not all that this is about. It would be better to help finance construction of a solid African infrastructure for example. Perhaps the best thing we can do is create retirement homes of sorts. The reason why people living in Africans and people who live in wretched conditions in general have so many children is so some of them will survive and the ones that do survive will be able to take care of their parents in their old age. If we take away that need they will have less children and recourses will become less taxed.

The money would be better spent on developing the countries where these children live

Absolutely

On an individual level the argument that charity breeds dependency fails in the case of Africa because there is nothing they can do is escape poverty so dependency has no ill effect but over the long term simple charity may breed dependency. It's the "old give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" saying. Still, we do not escape being terrible people because we are not really even doing that.

Congratz on being the first one to make a racist remark on this thread!

That comment wasn't racist it was just really shit stupid.

Spoiler

If you really believed what you are saying, you wouldn't be on this forum because you wouldn't have a computer. Instead, you would be donating almost everything you make to whatever charity you favor.

Notice that does not make his argument any less valid.

Until you are willing to do that, please stop trolling.

If anyone a troll it's you. Markness came here and created a new topic ripe with potential for discussion and you're the one fucking it up because you're sensibilites are so brittle. The fault for you're unreasonably weak sensibilities is your own.

Let me get your point, you seem to be saying that if someone doesn't donate to the "right" charity, they are horrible people.

"Right" isn't the right word as that seems to imply there is one right charity and the rest are all wrong charities. (Notice, the OP doesn't use the word "right" once.) It's better expressed as the best charity; "best" being defined as that which decreases suffering and increasing happiness the most. As you can see this does not preclude other charities from having merit. Donating to the second best charity does not make you a horrible person that would make you iffy at most and miles ahead of most people regardless. It's not that there is one charity out there that if you don't donate to when you do donate to another charity you get put on the same level as someone who doesn't donate at all.

By your logic, people shouldn't be allowed to help anyone that doesn't "deserve" help, only those who you deem "worthy" of help.

This argument fails for the reasons given above. Anyone suffering deserves help but those suffering the most deserve help the most. Putting a fuckload of money into performing surgery on a fish that could have saved ten peoples lives is no where near as morally sound as saving those ten lives would have been. Helping reduce anyones suffering (non-human animals included) is moral but the best use of your money is in helping those who are suffering the most.

And yes, I am diffrent

different from what?

I do this by NOT HAVING SEX. If more people would NOT HAVE SEX when they can't afford children, then we wouldn't have this problem of overpopulation.

WTF is you're point? Are you saying that people in third-world countries don't deserve our help because they were born dirt poor and resorted to having many children so they don't get thown out in the cold come their old age? That is what it sounds like to me.

Also, I am pretty sure that in the US (not sure about other places) you don't have to help people in need. In fact, I seem to recall that if you try to help someone and they get injured (such as if you fracture a rib while giving CPR), you could be sued for damages. Thus, it makes more sense to ignore people's suffering than it does to help them.

Exactly as you said that does not apply to other places so this argument doesn't make a dent in the OPs argument. It doesn't make a dent to it as far as the US is concered either really. Do you really think there is no way for you to help others without getting sued?

I pointed this link out once but it merits being pointed out again:
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/singermag.html

Note that you will probably be able to figure out what my response to any objection you have will be if you read it.

 

[Bernzz]

"No, Lois. Horses are terrible people."

*sips tea* *begins to choke* "Murder! Murder!"
*horse smiles, evil music plays*

OT: You're trying to make people feel bad because they donate to a certain charity? Honestly, be thankful they donate at all, mate.

 

[Serioli]

I'd rather the majority of my money goes where I think (Dog training for seeing eye dog) than elsewhere (Bribes to local warlord)

 

[oppp7]

Being someone who swore off most snack foods and is getting off meats, both for starving people, I can say that this doesn't describe me as much. Nevertheless, you do have a point.

 

[PurplePox]

I wouldn't donate to either. No one helped me when I was a kid and I'm perfectly okay. If I'm not gonna donate to a human then why would I donate to a dog?

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

different folks have different priorites. Not every one cares about starving kids in africa when they have to worry about their kids buying drugs on the streets of chicago.

so really it's all in whats important to you. it's kind of hard to be mad at someone that donates to a charity...reguardless of what charity it is.

 

[Dr. Danger]

I will donate to animal charities a million times over before I donate to any starving child.

And I won't even sugarcoat it. I like them better. They're much more helpless and adorable.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I wouldn't donate to either. No one helped me when I was a kid and I'm perfectly okay. If I'm not gonna donate to a human then why would I donate to a dog?

You don't live in Africa, aka Hell on Earth. I'm guessing you are not blind, not super poor (or you wouldn't have internet), not riddled with diseases you have no control over, and you are probably not on the verge of death.

Of course no one helped you.

Personally, prioritizing charity work seems... like a douche move. People are giving money to others they don't know: this is good. Guilt tripping these people will make them depresses and eat more ice cream, which is less money for charity.

Honestly though, charity is, for the most part, charity. The fact that they are trying should be good enough.

Personally, I put about 400 dollars of my pay check automatically into charity, probably another 200 into charities presented to me at work, and another 100 to random things that are asked of me (Like a breast cancer drive we had last week). Does that make me better than anyone else? Not really.

 

[bobknowsall]

Please no captain obvious for saying this, but you can now see why We are all Terrible People. (especially you, you know who you are)

Ehh, no, we aren't. Your reasoning is really disjointed here. We're terrible because some of us donate to animal charities, and some of us act like utter twats? That's a load of rubbish, and you know it.

Humans are weird and imperfect, but we're not all terrible. It's quite an insult to claim that we are.

 

[SlowShootinPete]

So much this, as I often say: "I would sacrifice a thousand human babies, just to make sure one dog lived a happy life"

Ahh, but a man can dream.

Is it wrong for me to give money to protect an endangered species? I'd say most of them are much more important than a bunch of starving children in Africa, considering there's currently less Cheetahs, elephants, pandas' etc. than there are human children.

In fact, the earth is currently overpopulated with humans, so maybe the terrible ones are the people who help others, considering they are prolonging human life and therefore reducing the earth's resources. (This isn't really a serious argument, but it's the same kind of generalization that the OP is using.)

How can people even say things like this?