Another Way To Prove My Point about African Children.

[squeek12]

$20/month isn't all that much to most people. It's not a life changing amount to contribute, but how far do you take it? The expression "give till it hurts" comes to mind. Should we keep donating until our quality of life is no better than the ones we are trying to save? Then you get into interpersonal comparisons of utility. $20 is much less valuable to me than it is to someone in poverty. Does that mean that I should continue to give until $20 means the same to me as it does to everyone?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the fact that most 3rd world children are probable future enemy soldier/combatants in the US led new world order, I submit that their death is +EV to US citizens.

Well Henry Kissenger would understand.

Personally I am disgusted by it, but it is realpolitik, and it does happen, it is happening.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
"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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus I think it has a social function. If you walk by and don't help, your friends/family might think, my my, he didn't save that girl, he might not save me! And they correctly realize they may have an accident someday.

But no one thinks, my my, he didn't help save a negroe girl halfway around the world, what will happen if am a negroe girl halfway around the world, will he walk past me too?

If you get what I mean.

[Warren Whitmore]

Money = A claim on other peoples goods and services.
It has no other function.

[siegfriedandroy]

Sklansky- perhaps you just shed light on the Christian reality that all men are sinners, godhaters, their mouths are open graves (Romans 3), etc.?

[billyjex]

So Dave,

how much money did you spend on African children this year?

[FredJones888]

Have you ever heard of the Christian Children's fund ? They advertise on tv and do exactly the charity that you are talking about in your original post. They have millions of members.

[malorum]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh dear,

I guess no one ever takes politicians, clerics, or life coaches seriously, except when it involves going to war making laws or changing your life, the nation or the world.

Then again most people are indeed like Data off star trek, entirely rational, internally consistent operating systems.
That must be why poker is so lucrative or have I missed something???

[Lawrence Ng]

David,

Your post here strung a chord inside me.

I think the embodiment of the human spirit is to ultimately make this world a better place for everyone.

I'm planning on making a personal crusade to various parts of Africa and Western Asia to help those who are severely unfortunate. I can think of no greater gift for myself.

How would you like to join me? I'm sure someone as influential as you could perhaps lead such a worthy crusade.

Lawrence

[Navers]

[ 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."

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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is good, Sandra Bullock very may well have donated two million. Maybe the amount people *should* donate can be evaluated kind of like the way progressive tax is worked. At a higher bracket you rely less on your money for basic survival needs so you should be expected to donate more, but if you're poor then almost all of your income will go to basic needs and therefore you donate little to no percent of your income. Just an idea.
But in a more pratical viewpoint, she *did* donate money. I think that realistically speaking its more important to focus on people to actually *start* donating reasonable amounts of money instead of seeing how much money they should give before they get to heaven. Of course what constitutes a reasonable amount of money will be debated but more importantly its that money actually starts getting donated. Of course, that is contingent on whether one believes the money should be donated in the first place.