Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

Be prepared to feel uncomfortable. But the fact is that those who don't espouse the clearcut philosphy, that other people's welfare is not our responsibility, will have difficulty responding to something I just thought of. The only other people who this won't apply to are the mega generous or the ones who argue that they are accumulating wealth now mainly for the ultimate benefit of others. And of course those sickies who might prefer Africans to die.

This leaves, I think, the majority of people. People who use the excuse that "you just can't help everybody" when in fact I believe that the real truth is that a strangers LIFE is worth less to them than a tiny bit of convenience.

To show this you need only to answer the following question honestly. HONESTLY.

To actually keep someone in Africa from dying costs maybe $20 a month. Pure guess. But almost certainly reasonably accurate. That translates to perhaps a one time donation of $1000. Certainly everyone on this forum is pretty sure it is between $300 and $3000. Let's all agree on that. So here is the question: Suppose it only cost One dollar to save a life? Plus a few postage stamps. Wouldn't you spend some time and money to save at least a few dozen people? You might even spend more than the thousand dollars you opted not to spend to save one person. Even if you didn't spend that much how many of you, not including those who were philosphically opposed to the whole concept, would honestly say they wouldn't go for a twenty dollar bill to save 20 lives?

But wait. At the same time you are acknowledging that you will pay $20 because you want to do some good you are therefore admitting that your unwillingness to pay or help pay for one life is based solely on the fact that you want to keep the money. It ISN'T because of some pseudo philosophical thought "one can only do so much". (unless you are already not well off or again, if the money is eventually earmarked for others, or if you are giving it to another charity where the money goes farther.) If that was true you wouldn't contribute at the cut rate price either. The reason you don't contribute at the higher price is that YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE THAT EXTRA THOUSAND DOLLARS THAN THAT THE AFRICAN CHILD LIVES. Period. Sorry.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

Don't the people in those countries have to do something for themselves eventually? Hasn't a lot of aid money over the past 30 years gone to dictators and warlords? Don't many African men consider a condom to be a unmanly? As long as tribal warfare and unprotected sex continue, they are going to have problems, no matter how much money I give.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

I thought about addressing some practical issues about donating to Africa, but I think he's trying to make a pretty general point. Plus, I didn't want my comments to be called stupid.

The thing I wanted to mention is that African war and famine are partially caused by aid. The OP could always stipulate that you found efficient, effective ways to give aid that promoted African self-reliance.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

Off the subject. Switch the argument to differnt dying children if you must.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

David, are you asking how much is a human life worth? Would you give away all your money if it meant a million children wouldn't die? Tough thing to ask someone to do.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

If a person does send the money he's doing it for the selfish reason to make himself feel good. If he doesn't send the money he's not being logically correct in his application of the golden rule.

So far I have not been too impressed with the absolute validity of Sklansky Logical Correctness. I think I will continue to apply moral principles by my lights, not yours David.

PairTheBoard

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]
And of course those sickies who might prefer Africans to die.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make it sound like it is wrong for some one to enjoy other peoples death

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

David
The answer lies in our society. The majority of us, atleast by the age of 18, know that $20/day has the power to save lives in a different country. The fact is, most of us choose not to donate - partly due to the majority of us wanting to keep our cash - but also for the same reason a single person tends to aid someone in need (such as a car accident, violent act on the streets,) while a group of individuals are less likely to step forward. I think you can boil your analysis further into the deepest, darkest caverns of human nature.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

it is.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

No one's principles, can be internally self contradictory, if they expect anyone to take them seriously when they espouse them.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]
it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think it is, but I was trying to see if DS thinks it is wrong

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

I don't think you can make such an absolute argument as it being either about money or about dying children.

For example:

Which is the greater good:

A) Donating $12,000 to save 12 third-world children directly

B) Donating $12,000 to save 1 American child (not a life-time total; pretend it's an important medical bill that will save their life)

C) Donating $12,000 to a school

D) Adopting a child (of any nationality) and raising them to live up to their best potential, while staying within your monetary means.


I personally think that (D) is the "best" option, in regards to both the adult and child's humanity, internal value and respect. I also think that (C) runs a close second, because you are affecting a larger number of individuals over both the short-term (say, the school year) and long-term (their entire lives being affected by their educational experience).

Additionally, I don't think that paying money to help somebody stay "alive" is the same as helping them "live". I think you may need to consider the morality of helping somebody stay alive in a less-than-desirable environment, as opposed to helping them live in an environment where every aspect of their personality and well-being can flourish.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

"...other people's welfare is not our responsibility."

Pretty much agree with that. I am not OBLIGATED to act, though I may do so if I so wish.

If I or my family was starving, while I may WISH that some rich stranger from the other side of the world (or just down the street for that matter) would come and feed us, I certianly wouldn't attach any blame to such a person should they not choose to do so. I don't understand why anyone would.

PS A pretty convincing argument can be made that aid to Africa has been a net negative for the people there, so maybe you should try a different example.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

I agree with everything you said. But it is again off the subject. Which is that rich Americans are deluding themselves when they think that their mere richness isn't almost by itself, something that makes it especially hard to be called good. If there was a heaven their chance of making it there is about the same as guiding a camel through a needle or something like that.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]
... rich Americans are deluding themselves when they think that their mere richness isn't almost by itself, something that makes it especially hard to be called good. If there was a heaven their chance of making it there is about the same as guiding a camel through a needle or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a real burden, isn't it?

Honestly, if being rich entailed having to give all my money and time away to other people so that you can feel that you are truly "good", then I'd much rather be poor.

Thankfully, I can enjoy the money I earn guilt free.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]
No one's principles, can be internally self contradictory, if they expect anyone to take them seriously when they espouse them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how you espouse the principles be applied. You may have one moral principle that says, "it is good to help other people" while also having a moral principle that says, "it is good to help yourself". Sklansky may be able to prove that it is not Logically Correct to have both. But the fact is that a lot of people do apply both, using their best judgement to balance the two.

PairTheBoard

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

Dave, put the NyQuil down.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

"rich Americans are deluding themselves when they think that their mere richness isn't almost by itself, something that makes it especially hard to be called good."

Sandra Bullock, who most likely qualifies as a "rich" American, recently gave $1,000,000 to Tsunami relief. Assuming that she saved lives with that effort,or alleviated hunger or sickness, does she still have the same chance of going to heaven (assuming there is one) as the camel does of getting through the eye of the needle because she could have given $2,000,000? $1,000,000 probably did a lot of good and she probably had a lot of pull to try to make sure the money went where it would indeed to good.

Isn't there a sense where "richness" makes it easier to be called good, since even a small % of a rich person's income, donated to charity, does a lot of good, whereas a less well-off person's contributions to charity, necessarily must be smaller absolute amounts and thus can't do nearly as much good?

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If a person does send the money he's doing it for the selfish reason to make himself feel good.
PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

If its an absolute moral truth the intentions are irrelevant.

"If he doesn't send the money he's not being logically correct in his application of the golden rule. "

Not following the golden rule equals not logicaly applying the golden rule but the point is that he is immoral by his own definition. If there is an absolute moral obligation to help someone when doing so is no more than an inconvienence, then thats the way it is. Someone posted a link in one of these threads where you could have donated money to vastly improve someones life in Africa. Donating to that link, providing you have some money to spare, is alot more convienant then it would be to save a child drowning that you see on your way to an important job interview.

Its kinda funny how only the two extremes seem to get this. If its Gods plan then all this human misery and such means nothing. I mean its sad and all, but what God does is absolutly right and who am I judge God. If Sklansky is right and there is no absolute morality, who cares, what does it change? Saying that there is nothing absolutly immoral about letting someone die is not to say that you should let that person die.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]


Isn't there a sense where "richness" makes it easier to be called good, since even a small % of a rich person's income, donated to charity, does a lot of good, whereas a less well-off person's contributions to charity, necessarily must be smaller absolute amounts and thus can't do nearly as much good?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bible says no, and thats the point. Rich religious americans are kidding themselves if they think they are moral or good by their Gods definition.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]
If Sklansky is right and there is no absolute morality,....

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean 'if '.


It is not contary to reason to perfer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. - David Hume, A Treatise upon Human Nature

Le Misanthrope

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

I was not arguing about the "absoluteness" of anything. I only responded to this thread because that was Not part of the topic. The point I was making in what you quoted was basically, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. When I see that kind of unfair treatment going on I can't help but object.

PairTheBoard

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]
DS --
the real truth is that a strangers LIFE is worth less to them than a tiny bit of convenience.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is that really the truth? If you saw a child about to be run over by a car, and you knew you could save her by pulling her out of traffic, I'll bet you would save her. Now let me ask you, Do you send money to African relief? If so why? If not, is it because a strangers LIFE is worth less to you than a tiny bit of convenience? Maybe you can duck into some ridiculous hardboiled Sklanskyism about EV guiding your actions. But I suspect the truth is otherwise and the Logical Correctness you've come up with on this subject is not so clearcut.

PairTheBoard

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

David, do you ever consider the possiblity that all your posts regarding morality stem from a desire (either conscious or subconscious) to prove to yourself and others that you are a good person without the need of a supreme being instructing you to do so?

Cheers,
SDM

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

"If not, is it because a strangers LIFE is worth less to you than a tiny bit of convenience?"

That is correct. It isn't. I'd save the girl because she is no longer a stranger.

Anybody who thinks this answer somehow contradicts my other posts on the subject are not getting where I'm coming from.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

"David, do you ever consider the possiblity that all your posts regarding morality stem from a desire (either conscious or subconscious) to prove to yourself and others that you are a good person without the need of a supreme being instructing you to do so?"

Cheers,
SDM

I think my post just above this should put that to rest.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]
"David, do you ever consider the possiblity that all your posts regarding morality stem from a desire (either conscious or subconscious) to prove to yourself and others that you are a good person without the need of a supreme being instructing you to do so?"

Cheers,
SDM

I think my post just above this should put that to rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if it's subconscious.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]
YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE THAT EXTRA THOUSAND DOLLARS THAN THAT THE AFRICAN CHILD LIVES.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the way I am hard wired.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Off the subject. Switch the argument to differnt dying children if you must.

[/ QUOTE ]

You expect us to do the dirty work?

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

I would not send 1 cent to save a thousand starving children of any race, color, or creed. Its the priciple of the thing. I consider altruism to be the greatest evil on earth and want no part of it.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

When you are paid, you are being rewarded for you contribution to society. If you weren't compensated for your efforts, then there would be no incentive to be productive. People can only tend to others once there own house is in order. For the contrived example I feel that I am being fairly rewarded with a $1000. for me to give 20, I am still feeling fairly compensated but also trying to improve the world around me. If I gave up $1000, there would be no incentive for me to make that $1000 again. Giving up the $1000 to save the child is bad for the world around me. Its not that people value $1000 more then another persons life (though some do). Its the fact we respect that you are basically giving up your life to earn that $1000.

BTW David, I am pretty sure donating your time and money to a charity instead of teaching us how to bilk idiots out of their money in poker would save a lot more lives. But I hope you never stop, even if you think of yourself as hitler.

Is it really that simple?
 

"To actually keep someone in Africa from dying costs maybe $20 a month. Pure guess. But almost certainly reasonably accurate. That translates to perhaps a one time donation of $1000. Certainly everyone on this forum is pretty sure it is between $300 and $3000. Let's all agree on that."

I don't intend to hijack your thread or take away from the intent of your post, but I think this is a relevant issue:

Is the problem in Africa really so simple that it can be solved by throwing money at it? How do I know that $1000 is actually going to save a life?

Life isn\'t measured in dollars.
 

I have friends for whom I'd gladly spend thousands, and for whom I'd be willing to devote many hours of my time helping.

However, I see little to be gained from spending a fraction of that much saving the lives of African children.

I don't view lives as having an absolute, measurable EV. Were that the case, if it takes $100 to save the life of a friend, and $1 to save the life of a starving African child, my friend's life will be sacrificed for one hundred African children.

I personally believe that spending money on people you'll never meet or gain some sort of attachment to is a means of alleviating guilt. It seems very detached and mechanical, and I don't see how it satisfies the deep human desire to heal and connect...and in the end, isn't that the whole point of life?

It's very hard to measure this in dollars.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

"When you are paid, you are being rewarded for you contribution to society. If you weren't compensated for your efforts, then there would be no incentive to be productive."

This cannot be true as many people are wealthy not thru their "productive" effort but through inheritance, theft, or just lucky circumstances. Besides that, what we call money is just a convention that has been artificially devised and manipulated for several centuries thru usury.

"People can only tend to others once there own house is in order."

Again, not true. European civilization was built around the monastery where men and women took vows of poverty and worked for others around them with no material compensation. They even had to beg for food.

"Its the fact we respect that you are basically giving up your life to earn that $1000."

People have the free choice to give their life up to whatever they wish. There is no justified respect for that time spent accumulating the $1000, as it could have been done doing different things.

"I am pretty sure donating your time and money to a charity instead of teaching us how to bilk idiots out of their money in poker would save a lot more lives."

I doubt that because applied logic or intelligence is much scarcer and more valuable a commodity than grunt work on the front lines. Many more people will be effected by thoughts which lead to action than someone merely taking action without thought.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

Well said, on many points.

On the matter of "helping only when one's own house is in order," I think this really boils down to the person. I think that gaining an emotional high from charitable works is something that most people can only do after they've taken care of some of their own personal matters. This is psychological. While some truly good-hearted people are able to take a vow of poverty and servitude, most of us have to tend to our more "selfish" needs...security, belongingness, love, ego...before we are ready to reap the rewards of charity.

Thus, for most people, I think donating to charity is kind of an empty act.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]
YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE THAT EXTRA THOUSAND DOLLARS THAN THAT THE AFRICAN CHILD LIVES. Period. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

The African child or any African, or any other American for that matter are not my responsibility.

If that $1,000 could be used to make my childs life more secure, then that is where it should go.

If everybody took care of their own the world would be a better place.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

[ QUOTE ]

This cannot be true as many people are wealthy not thru their "productive" effort but through inheritance, theft, or just lucky circumstances. Besides that, what we call money is just a convention that has been artificially devised and manipulated for several centuries thru usury.


[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you can generate wealth in a multitude of ways. But generally, speaking when you are paid for a job. You are being paid for time which you spend contributing to society.

[ QUOTE ]

Again, not true. European civilization was built around the monastery where men and women took vows of poverty and worked for others around them with no material compensation. They even had to beg for food.


[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, a society couldn't afford such developments until it was rich enough to have extra food. You can't support a priest if you are a subsistence farmer. Who do you think gives the most foreign aid in the world. Who do you think has the highest charity rates. It sure as hell ain't the poor third world countries. Its obvious the more money you have the more you can afford to donate (whether to charity or through income taxes).

Regarding time. A doctor takes a long time to get his degree. He is contributing to society at a very high level. Should we not respect his choices and his dedication? Should we consider him on par with the vagrant who chooses to be a crack addict?

[ QUOTE ]

I doubt that because applied logic or intelligence is much scarcer and more valuable a commodity than grunt work on the front lines. Many more people will be effected by thoughts which lead to action than someone merely taking action without thought.


[/ QUOTE ]
Perfect. There are all kinds of values for commodities. Perhaps giving money to people who provide services for you is better then giving it to charity. Its crazy to judge everything based on how many lives in Africa we can save.

Peter, my point was that from society's point of view 2% vs %100 of your salary is very different. And that when people choose not to give %100 of their income for saving lives it is both a rational and ethical choice. Its not selfish and its not hypocritical. Maybe that didn't come through.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

You are right, we all have the right to private property, and it is ethical and rational to sustain it.

Because we are societal creatures, we are also obligated to help those who are weaker or less well off, as we ourselves cannot survive without the help of others. I was pointing out that some of the reasoning (if taken solely from the context of "money" which you have rightfully changed) did not justify your ulitmately correct conclusion.

It is also interesting to see that there seem to be very few people except 2+2ers who are actually discussing the topic intelligenctly and hence doing something about it. If only the rest of the world wanted to play intelligent poker....

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

To expand further.

Sending money to starving people in foriegn countries is merely treating a symptom and not the disease. The reason the people are starving and don't have good medical care has more to do with the system of the government under which they live.

Saving one person is a useless gesture, as the system that created the starving person, will undoubtedly create more.

Re: Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.
 

Judging from your posts about this subject, David, I'm assuming that you give all of your money to african charity aids?

Mike Emery