Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.

[David Sklansky]

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.

[JackWhite]

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.

[microbet]

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.

[David Sklansky]

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

[JackWhite]

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.

[fatdave]

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.

[David Sklansky]

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.

[Jim T]

[ 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.

[andyfox]

"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?

[laurentia]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

You expect us to do the dirty work?