Justification for luxury living

HarryD

I always thought if I won the lottery, I'd pay off my families debts,
buy myself a house and give the rest to charity.
I didn't think I could justify holding onto excess amounts of money
when people are dying for need of food around the world.
I could never understand how the v.wealthy amoungst us could
justify living in luxury when others are starving to death.
Eg: Bob Geldof is estimated to be worth £30M, has seen 1st hand
people starving to death, yet keeps his £30M to himself.
How can he justify not keeping what he needs to live
comfortably and help the needy with the rest ?

Then I thought further of my own situation:
I earn a pretty decent wage and have little outgoings so have
quite a bit of disposable cash each month.
I currently invest this, which will hopefully make
me wealthier, but realistically I live very comfortably, and
the homeless/starving people of today need it much
more than I need it.
I'm as much a hypocrite as Geldof.

There seems to be a large greedy aspect to our society.
How can we justify living in relative luxury when
people starving down the road ?
It's morally wrong, yet seems perfectly acceptable today
to sh*t on the people less fortunate than us.
Why don't I take my disposable cash and buy food/clothes for the
homeless... take time off and go help starving people in
famine stricken countries ?.... Can I jusify not doing it ?

Dermington

I guess Bob Geldof may feel as though he is doing as much as he can while maintaining this celebrity and wealth he has.

Same reasoning for all people really...Angelina Jolie gives is it 10% or 15% of her total earning to charity...why not 50%?? I mean 50% of millions a year still leaves a lot of cash.

The fact is that people like being wealthy and the lucky ones like being charitable too and they do as they see fit with their money. I do the same...I could give far more but I choose to give what I choose to give and thats as much as I want to give at the moment.

I dont think its greed and I think it is present in every society in the world.

I don't see anything wrong with it myself. If you can live in luxury do so. I'm not likely to ever be in that situation myself, so I doubt I'll ever have to consider it as being one.

The thing is though you win the lottery its not going to make you ultra rich. The Irish lottery will make you comfortable, but in this day and age the cost of living, and other spending factors, 3-4 million isn't going to set you up in luxury. Winning the British lottery or the euro millions, is more likely to set you up.

The thing I've noticed with every pay rise is that my living changes and adapts to match that of my rise. I'm earning about 17k more now than I did when I started working 6 years ago, and yet I probably have less actual cash available for spending, once expenses like my mortgage, car, insurance(s) etc are all taken into account.

Eg: Bob Geldof is estimated to be worth £30M, has seen 1st hand
people starving to death, yet keeps his £30M to himself.

He's worth 30m. It doesn't mean he has 30 million available to him. I'm worth about a million through my assets & employment status, but I only actually have my 32k per year actually available to me on a yearly basis, and even then after taxes, and necessary expenses thats cut down a fair bit.

How can we justify living in relative luxury when
people starving down the road ?
It's morally wrong, yet seems perfectly acceptable today
to sh*t on the people less fortunate than us.
Why don't I take my disposable cash and buy food/clothes for the
homeless... take time off and go help starving people in
famine stricken countries ?.... Can I jusify not doing it ?

I don't see it as being wrong. I see it as being life. **** happens. Some people aren't willing to work, or bad luck occurs when places them in a lower income than me. I work very hard for what I earn. I haven't had a holiday in 3 years, and I leave home in the morning at 7, and get home at night usually abt 8 in the evening. Yes... Poor me. :rolleyes:

For me its about choice. In many cases, the poor are poor through choice. They choose to do drugs, they choose not to seek education, they choose not to work hard. I've known travellers that have chosen to be poor, and travellers that worked hard and are now earning more than me.

Choice.

So. No. I may give some money a few times a week to people on the street, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over their situation. It might not be the nicest thing to say, but most people want to live their lives, pay their individual price to be comfortable, and get on with it.

I always thought if I won the lottery, I'd pay off my families debts,
buy myself a house and give the rest to charity.

If I won, I would pay off my many debts, my families debts, give 50k to each of my close friends, and then live off the interest. I have two charities I give money to, and I'd probably give 50k to each of them aswell.

Earthhorse

I think the real reason people don't give all their spare cash, or even most or half it, to good causes is because they know that fundamentally these problems are not solved by money.

Making a real difference in this world is not a hobby or a part time job. It's a life choice. If you don't make that choice it's probably because it would be the wrong choice for you and the world.

bonkey

Dermington wrote:

I guess Bob Geldof may feel as though he is doing as much as he can while maintaining this celebrity and wealth he has.

Same reasoning for all people really...Angelina Jolie gives is it 10% or 15% of her total earning to charity...why not 50%?? I mean 50% of millions a year still leaves a lot of cash.

Its (allegedly) 1/3 that she gives away.

But why stop at 50%? Why not ask why she doesn't give 99% away? Indeed, while her takehome is higher than anyone else on the planet's one can ask how she can justify keeping what she does.

Where do you draw the line?

While Jolie earns a cent more tha nme, should I be expected to give a cent to charity? Why doesn't Jolie give it? She can afford it more.

The fact is that people like being wealthy and the lucky ones like being charitable too

Its not about liking wealth. Its about how much people are willing to sacrifice. What you'll generally find is that people use others' lack of willingness to engage in sacrifice as their own justification.

I shouldn't give much/any money while rich-gits keep so much of their money.

The rich probably argue that there's no benefit in them bankrupting themselves when what they're working for is for society to change so that everyone only sacrifices a little...which they're already doing, so they shouldn't give more till the rest of society catches up.

Luxury living is an interesting description though. If you count it as being "above the median" or "above the average" then the vast majority of Irish people live in luxury.

The Corinthian

HarryD wrote:

I always thought if I won the lottery, I'd pay off my families debts,
buy myself a house and give the rest to charity.
I didn't think I could justify holding onto excess amounts of money
when people are dying for need of food around the world.

When you win the lottery, feel free to come back and confirm that you did this. Until then, this is just conversation and reminds me of the old adage that a Socialist is someone who has nothing and wants to share it with the World.

There seems to be a large greedy aspect to our society.

There is a large greedy aspect to every Society. It’s part of human nature.

How can we justify living in relative luxury when
people starving down the road ?

Why do we need to justify it?

Dave!

Earthhorse wrote:

I think the real reason people don't give all their spare cash, or even most or half it, to good causes is because they know that fundamentally these problems are not solved by money.

Yeah exactly, for most people's lifetimes they've been hearing about problems in Africa and so on, and we just don't seem to be making any progress, even with all the millions being pumped into the continent. If you donate €50 to Trocaire, you get a letter of thanks and that's it -- you never hear any updates, where exactly your money went, who benefited from it, how many days' worth of medicine it bought them, or anything. If charities were more personalised (eg. a list of names that need €50 a month, and when the name is sponsored, they're marked off), then people could see their money doing good and not assume it's being lost through administrative costs or corrupt leaders. Donating money just seems so futile (to alot of people).

The Corinthian wrote:

When you win the lottery, feel free to come back and confirm that you did this. Until then, this is just conversation and reminds me of the old adage that a Socialist is someone who has nothing and wants to share it with the World.

He said "I always thought...", as in past-tense, and he doesn't know if he actually would. No need to be so fucking snappy :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

Why do we need to justify it?

Well because money is what buys food, and we have lots, and they have none. We can take really poor people from an abismal life, and give them a reasonable life, by taking really rich people from an extravagent life, and giving them a reasonable life. I suppose that's the general reasoning.

The Corinthian

DaveMcG wrote:

He said "I always thought...", as in past-tense, and he doesn't know if he actually would. No need to be so fucking snappy :rolleyes:

Or for him to be so sanctimonious.

Well because money is what buys food, and we have lots, and they have none. We can take really poor people from an abismal life, and give them a reasonable life, by taking really rich people from an extravagent life, and giving them a reasonable life. I suppose that's the general reasoning.

So what? To allay guilt or actually do something constructive?

InFront

This is a very good question and one thats very hard to answer. We are all guilty of living comfortably (sorry but if you can afford internet access to boards thats just how it is).

There was a Sudanese man on the radio today who was once so hungry he considered eating his dead friend. Most of us wouldnt eat in a restaurant if the floor was dirty...

I cant explain it why I spend so much money on ridiculous things like CDs and other personal comforts knowing that there are millions of people literally starving just 3 hours away on an aeroplane. I have seen frightening poverty firsthand as a child, I zoned it out, and today I am still zoning it out of my mind. I dont think that I acknowledge it properly at all, in fact i dont think any of us do. It sounds very dramatic, but then the whole thing sis very dramatic.

Why do we need to justify it?

Obviously this is a reality that people dont like to discuss because it makes them (us) feel bad or like we should be doing more, and of course we should be doing more. Its just a question of hoping that when the time comes to do something for us to do something, that we each have the courage to do it. Its avery personal decision I think

m1ke

Here's a justification: charity is not the best possible solution to reducing poverty in the world. Don't get me wrong, charity can be a good thing. However, it could also have the exact opposite effect that the giver intends. It could increase or lock-in poverty permanently. By providing a small amount of money to someone you are giving them a taste or something they can't have and giving them less incentive to change their own situation.

There are much more efficient ways of helping people besides giving to charity. For instance, investing money in a developing country. You still get to profit from you investment (or not), live in luxury and help more people than you could have helped via charity. This is just one hypothetical though.

InFront

Yes thats a very good point about investment in foreign infrastructure, but that mainly has to do with government policy and debt relief and the IMF. Its is everyday people who are essentially responsible for the day to day maintenance of dying and starving people. A man needs to be fed if he will be able to work and whilst Im not suggesting that everyone mortgage their house for Africa, we shouldnt shirk responsibilities either. Charity is only a small part of the answer, but if we stopped giving to charity there would be untold suffering and I dare say a charity famine would be more serious than any other kind.

The Corinthian

InFront wrote:

Obviously this is a reality that people dont like to discuss because it makes them (us) feel bad or like we should be doing more, and of course we should be doing more. Its just a question of hoping that when the time comes to do something for us to do something, that we each have the courage to do it. Its avery personal decision I think

All sounds like pretty much self-indulgent ****, TBH.

The guilt that people feel that they happen to have a better pot to piss in than some starving African poster boy (more typically girls as they play to the heart strings better) is entirely self serving. Do not kid yourselves that it in anyway is anything other than a selfish act born out of self-loathing and cheap emotion.

Even the argument that some good can come of the charity born of this guilt is flawed as donations typically will come in the form of what allays guilt rather than what will actually help the people that it is meant to - that is after all the principle motivation. As such you’ll often find charity compounding and perpetuating the problem, which is why we have permanent refugee camps in countries like Ethiopia, not because of drought or war, but because the West has been feeding these people just about enough grain to both keep them alive and discourage their own enterprise.

So snap out of it. Grow up. If you have a comfortable life and others don’t, just be thankful, and you really want to help others do so, but not because you want to wallow in self pity.

bizmark

Your a wise man Corinthian

InFront

The Corinthian wrote:

Do not kid yourselves that it in anyway is anything other than a selfish act born out of self-loathing and cheap emotion.
.

So we give to charity vecause... we hate ourselves? or because we are too emotional? Yeah and dont get me started on the people who give their careers to work in the 3rd world theyre the worst.:rolleyes: Let me guess youre the kind of person who sees the best in everyone right?

Even the argument that some good can come of the charity born of this guilt is flawed as donations typically will come in the form of what allays guilt rather than what will actually help the people that it is meant to - that is after all the principle motivation.

I dont care. Who cares what the motivation is??

So snap out of it. Grow up. If you have a comfortable life and others don’t, just be thankful, and you really want to help others do so, but not because you want to wallow in self pity

I think you have a very distorted view of why people give to charities. Even if that were the case with some people, do you think good deeds shouldnt be done if they are not done with good intentions? FF arent putting more effort into health at the moment because they are genuinely concerned about old people, the current 'push' is for votes. That doesnt mean its not welcome. Are you trolling or are you serious?

Shellie13

I don't think irts an inate selfishness that we don't give to charity, we're just conditioned ot expect too much in this part of the world!
For instance if i had €20 in my back pocet i'd complin i was "broke" and could't afford a night out....
But surly if we were living in a just world i'd think more along the lines of "wow this could save a life in the 3rd world should give it to trocaire as i live at home, my parents buy my food, i have plenty of clothes and don't "Need" anymore?!"

Then again i can't think of a young person in Ireland who'd think like this...
We seem to EXPECT "luxury"
Poverty in Ireland is having no TV or struggleing to pay rent etc... Ye thats bad but we know nothing of the 3rd world. We can't seem to draw comparisions its alien to us!

InFront

Agreed, THAT was a useful point

The Corinthian

InFront wrote:

So we give to charity vecause... we hate ourselves? or because we are too emotional? Yeah and dont get me started on the people who give their careers to work in the 3rd world theyre the worst.:rolleyes:

Yes. Guilt drives much of charity - not all, but much of it. The people who will give blindly to a cause because it gives them a feel good feeling. And often their money will get misspent - sometimes going so far as to perpetuate the very problems they are supposed to solve.

Let me guess youre the kind of person who sees the best in everyone right?

Is there a reason you’re attempting to make a point with a personal attack other than an inability to form a coherent argument?

I dont care. Who cares what the motivation is??

Because if the motivation will dictate the nature of the action. If your primary motivation is to solve these problems that that is what you’ll aim for. If on the other hand it is to sooth some middle-class guilt, then that is what you’ll aim for - not to solve the problem, because that may require a solution that may be difficult or unpalatable for someone who’s ultimately following another motive.

I think you have a very distorted view of why people give to charities. Even if that were the case with some people, do you think good deeds shouldnt be done if they are not done with good intentions? FF arent putting more effort into health at the moment because they are genuinely concerned about old people, the current 'push' is for votes. That doesnt mean its not welcome. Are you trolling or are you serious?

I would agree with you except that, other than the hypocrisy it represents, misdirected charity often causes more harm than good.

Shellie13

Shellie13 wrote:

I don't think irts an inate selfishness that we don't give to charity, we're just conditioned ot expect too much in this part of the world!
For instance if i had €20 in my back pocet i'd complin i was "broke" and could't afford a night out....

And you're comparing this with what? You're comparing it to when you're relatively flush with cash. You're not comparing it with people starving in Africa, because such comparisons are moot since we live very different lives,, with very different traditions, and a very different mindset.

But surly if we were living in a just world i'd think more along the lines of "wow this could save a life in the 3rd world should give it to trocaire as i live at home, my parents buy my food, i have plenty of clothes and don't "Need" anymore?!"

And that would do what? This isn't about need. Most people in Ireland have what they need. This is about want. You want to give to charity. Fine. I want a new plasma TV. Fine. I don't need any of those things, no more than you need to give to charity.

If you were really concerned about this, why don't you take two years off work, and go volunteer to work over there? It would do more than the 100 odd euro you give, which is unlikely to actually help fix the problems.

Then again i can't think of a young person in Ireland who'd think like this...
We seem to EXPECT "luxury"

Sure we do. We live in a country thats booming in comparison to thirty years ago. The last generation have grown up with this boom, and its all they know. However, my Dad can still recall not having enough money for food, for paying the bills, and the inability to get work within Ireland.

The difference is that you seem to believe everyone has been born into this luxury. Even at my age, I can remember the Celtic tiger, and what ireland was like before it.

Poverty in Ireland is having no TV or struggleing to pay rent etc... Ye thats bad but we know nothing of the 3rd world. We can't seem to draw comparisions its alien to us!

Maybe thats poverty for you. I, on the other hand, still consider poverty as not having enough money for food, rent, etc. And there are still a fair number of Irish people living in Ireland on and below the poverty line. Perhaps if you're thinking about charity, look to Irish people first?

But I still don't think shoving money at a problem actually works. It hasn't worked in Europe, and it hasn't worked in Africa.

Corinthian, Good posts.

Mean_Mudda

Corinthian, Good posts.... Your a wise man Corinthian

Oh Corinthian, please let me wash you feet !
This site seems to be full of mod asslicking..
Estimated average mental age - 15

Mean_Mudda

Mean_Mudda wrote:

Oh Corinthian, please let me wash you feet !
This site seems to be full of mod asslicking..
Estimated average mental age - 15

Lol. Because we agree he's talking sense, we're asslicking? Let me guess, child, that you've never agreed with anyone, because you're going through that rebellious phase :rolleyes:

Perhaps if you don't agree, post up your opinion. Otherwise, stop trolling.

murt

You're correct mean_mudda.
It really is a shame when the mods have the most negitive views and publish them so feverently. Are the mods not supposed to stimulate thinking and conversation rather than poo poo on other's posts?

Funny. I thought Mods were there to moderate the forums (Preventing racism, trolling, spam posts, insults, etc). Any posts they make are their own opinions.

I do find it interesting that both you and Mean_Mudda have appeared (without previously posting to it) on this thread, and posted not about the actual topic, but rather about the posters/mod.... Perhaps this is one of the reasons we have mods at all. :rolleyes:

But then I've always had problems resisting posting replies to trolls.

McGinty

I would concur with what Corinthian has said (I'm 34, but if you want to think I'm 15, then great) but I'll also add a few insights myself having been around the block a few times. I've been dirt poor, when I was in the UK, I lost three stone (god bless the fact I was fat before I fell into hard times) because I couldn't afford to eat, was in temporary accomodation, etc, I made some bad choices and I got myself out of them eventually, I also had a dash of bad luck as well. I very much believe in the hand up mentality, not the hand out mentality, and this is what is going on with charities, the health services and various other charitable organisations. I have in the past, worked as a volunteer with Oxfam, the Kidney Foundation and Mencap, the first two were for selfish reasons, the latter because I felt passionate about the cause. Whilst working for Oxfam and the Kidney Foundation, their strategy was aimed at people's guilt, and I can also add that most of the money was mismanaged. I know people who have worked for Concern, etc and the same thing has happened. By giving to charities in that way, we are encouraging African people, etc to be dependent on us for food and supplies, whilst at the same time feeling an inflated sense of our selves (ie are we good for helping those poor people out, this is insulting in reality). What needs to be tackled is the pillaging of resources in those countries, the debt problems ( I am strongly in favour of dropping the 3rd world debt but at the same time letting those countries become fully responsible for their own economies). People, states etc may need intial help to stand on their own two feet but we must always be mindful that people/states need to be able to become self sufficent, I feel this is one of the points Corinthian is making. The second point he raises is that many people people give to stop feeling guilty, because they are better off.
I am a damn sight better off than I was years ago, and when I buy a luxury I give thanks and enjoy it, and I enjoy any extra money I have, if I want to share my money with someone I will,not to make myself feel better but because I want to, and if I don't I keep it too myself without any guilty feelings. We are lucky that we are in a country that does well (I remember the bad times here) we should enjoy it without justifying it.

LovelyHurling

This is stupid! I think it was the corinthian who said something like it matters where the drive from charity money comes from becuase that money is misdirected? You serious? Charity money is needed to stop people from dying in the short term, you cant just end it all of asudden.

Corinthian (or whoever said that) what would you realistically recommend Joe Public to do here? Not donate money to charity so that eventually governments get the message when enough people die?

Your bull**** sounds likeyoure giving yourself a backrub for not doing enough yourself. And yes what is with the asslicking in here??

Memnoch

To the OP,

I think ultimately it comes down to a matter of philosophy, personal and that of humanity in general. I think the situation is more complex than it would seem obviously. I mean first of all you need to set some sort of measure by which to gauge right/wrong. Everyone has their own set of values and morals and sets store by them. A lot also comes down to purpose, lack thereof or how we define our purpose in life.

The sad truth is that humanity's most basic drive is that of survival. At the level of a species but even more so at the level of the individual. Wealth is associated with greater survival and so being greedy serves that evolutionary purpose quite well.

I would go as far as saying that there is no such thing as altruism. That ultimately every single human action can be defined as being based out of selfishness and personal gain. Be that gain material or emotional.

I don't give any money to charity, I know that it's wrong, that even if I gave a little it would probably help a lot. My reasons for this are varied and complex, but ultimately come down to my selfishness.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that the human race is pretty damn ugly, and this is just one example of our worth as a species. Not to say that I know of better species out there. Who knows, someday we may evolve beyond a pure selfish survivalist attitude and our basic barbarism. The only comforting thing is that while we are no more sophisticated ethically than we were a few hundred years ago, at least there are those amongst us who are beginning to question our way of life.

As throughout history however there will always be a large majority of people who will laugh at the idea of a flying machine than who will think it possible.

iguana

McGinty wrote:

I have in the past, worked as a volunteer with Oxfam, the Kidney Foundation and Mencap, the first two were for selfish reasons, the latter because I felt passionate about the cause. Whilst working for Oxfam and the Kidney Foundation, their strategy was aimed at people's guilt, and I can also add that most of the money was mismanaged.

Could you please give examples of this. I have worked for Oxfam for 3 and a half years and I am curious as to what evidence of mis-managment you have seen.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote:

I guess what i'm trying to say is that the human race is pretty damn ugly, and this is just one example of our worth as a species. Not to say that I know of better species out there. Who knows, someday we may evolve beyond a pure selfish survivalist attitude and our basic barbarism. The only comforting thing is that while we are no more sophisticated ethically than we were a few hundred years ago, at least there are those amongst us who are beginning to question our way of life.

I probably have a different set of opinions than most people posting to this thread. The Simple fact is, I no longer "care" (monetary or otherwise) about those people in Africa. Not really all that "nice" but there you go. I wonder perhaps if people are starting to question the false sympathies that we apparently "should" feel about those starving. Why do we have to feel the need to help them at all?

You mention that survival is probably the most basic instinct, and yet so is domination. Africa consistently provides itself with examples of where singular tribes seek to dominate other tribes. I've seen 20+ years of aid being sent to Africa with very little in return. And by return I'm talking about an actual improvement in the mindset of the people that live there. Survival might be primary, but so is the violence that African people love to share with each other.

The aid that is supplied does indeed find its way to saving many people. Until they're killed by their own people. The aid thats supplied is siezed by the rebels, government troops, or some other grouping. Other aid is stolen and sold for profit. i'm sure that the people that advocate the supply of aid, will say that these are necessary evils, and yet in the last 20 years has it changed?

I would ask. Do you, who advocate supplying aid, believe that you are actually helping the peoples of Africa, or just making them dependent on foreign aid?

LovelyHurling wrote:

Your bull**** sounds likeyoure giving yourself a backrub for not doing enough yourself. And yes what is with the asslicking in here??

ok. I ask you. How would you change the situation in Africa whereby they would stop their civil wars (which in turn cause famines), genocides (which generate refugees & famine), mistreatment of the land (which increases desert areas, and causes famine), bribery & corruption, Tribal conflicts (which also cause numerous issues like above) ?

Rather than talking about asslicking, (just because people have different opinions than you), perhaps actually contibute some opinions.... Its funny that the three people shouting about asslicking haven't actually posted any opinions or suggestions of any depth. :rolleyes:

Ray Quinn

Deleted User wrote:

You mention that survival is probably the most basic instinct, and yet so is domination.

Domination is a basic instinct !
u serious ?

Deleted User wrote:

The aid that is supplied does indeed find its way to saving many people. Until they're killed by their own people. The aid thats supplied is siezed by the rebels, government troops, or some other grouping. Other aid is stolen and sold for profit. i'm sure that the people that advocate the supply of aid, will say that these are necessary evils, and yet in the last 20 years has it changed?

Sounds like you think all the aid goes astray..
Have you anything to back this up/quantify it ?

I'd argue that compassion is as much a basic instinct as survival,
while greediness is something that has been inflicted on us by society.
This justifies why I give no charity - not guilt.
I don't think survival and greediness are related - one can be surviving
quite well and not be greedy, take a look at our wild canine colleagues.

And yes what is with the asslicking in here??

I agree.. now I remember why I put this bookmark on the shelf.

The Corinthian

murt wrote:

It really is a shame when the mods have the most negitive views and publish them so feverently. Are the mods not supposed to stimulate thinking and conversation rather than poo poo on other's posts?

I’ve stimulated far more discussion on this topic than you have. In fact, the debunking of another’s argument (or poo poo as you would so eloquently put it) is central to any discourse. Unless you consider unquestioned rhetoric to somehow be stimulating conversation?

LovelyHurling wrote:

This is stupid! I think it was the corinthian who said something like it matters where the drive from charity money comes from becuase that money is misdirected? You serious? Charity money is needed to stop people from dying in the short term, you cant just end it all of asudden.

I didn’t say that. You appear to have misunderstood what I said and then extrapolated it to a conclusion that I never suggested.

Corinthian (or whoever said that) what would you realistically recommend Joe Public to do here? Not donate money to charity so that eventually governments get the message when enough people die?

I didn’t say that. In fact, I’m not certain anyone did.

Your bull**** sounds likeyoure giving yourself a backrub for not doing enough yourself.

What you imagined I said probably sounds like anything you would like it to sound like, but your entire post is based upon things I never said.

And yes what is with the asslicking in here??

I’m sure if you were competent enough to post a coherent argument you’d get some too.

Ray Quinn wrote:

Domination is a basic instinct !
u serious ?

I would have called it avarice or greed rather than domination but yes; the need to control resources, environment and even people is a pretty basic human instinct which is never satisfied - hence the first axiom of utility in economics, for example.

Sounds like you think all the aid goes astray..
Have you anything to back this up/quantify it ?

He never suggested that all the aid goes astray, so you’re attempting a straw man argument.

I'd argue that compassion is as much a basic instinct as survival,
while greediness is something that has been inflicted on us by society.
This justifies why I give no charity - not guilt.

Greed, hate and any of the other negative qualities of humanity are not limited to our Society or even species and have been repeatedly observed in both primitive Societies and animals. But even if your suggestion were true, that does not imply that you would not be motivated by greed or guilt - your reasoning is flawed.

I don't think survival and greediness are related - one can be surviving
quite well and not be greedy, take a look at our wild canine colleagues.

That’s actually not true. Animals instinctively gorge themselves because the next meal has historically always been uncertain.

Also while wild animals may not appear greedy, that’s due to scarcity rather than any romantic notion of ecological altruism. If that scarcity is not present “our wild canine colleagues” will end up just as their domesticated and more pampered cousins - fat.

Memnoch

Deleted User wrote:

I probably have a different set of opinions than most people posting to this thread. The Simple fact is, I no longer "care" (monetary or otherwise)......

Domination isn't an instinct, merely another survival mechanism, which as I said previously is what it all boils down to ultimately. Those who are dominated by you cannot harm you or reduce your chance at survival and propagation, in addition they serve to further your interests by their sub-servience. Domination is no different to any of the other mechanisms involved.

You talk about the ineffectiveness of foreign aid, and perhaps you are partially right on that. The real cure would be to fix their problems, to stop supporting their dictators, to punish heavily (by the government) western corporations in their own countries where they support corrupt regimes and help in the opression of indiginous peoples. The irony however is that the reasons behind not wanting to give aid are pretty much the same reasons that prevent us from making any lasting changes. Because ultimately if you don't care about their quality of life, or the fact that they are economically enslaved by us then it doesn't matter weather it's aid or debt relief or regime change.

Now I'm not going to get into the morality or ethics of this, because ultimately people make a decision on what they consider right and wrong and what they consider to be a good person. This varies for each individual and is dependent on too many factors to even try to list. But not everyone out there cares if they are a good person or not. Why should you care?

Such apathy is another surival instinct that we barbaric humans excel at.

LovelyHurling

LH:I think it was the corinthian who said something like it matters where the drive from charity money comes from becuase that money is misdirected?

Corinthian: I didn’t say that

But if we go back we find:

Corinthian:

The people who will give blindly to a cause because it gives them a feel good feeling. And often their money will get misspent - sometimes going so far as to perpetuate the very problems they are supposed to solve....misdirected charity often causes more harm than good.

Please stop using the word coherent when you dont even appear to understand its meaning.

ok. I ask you. How would you change the situation in Africa whereby they would stop their civil wars (which in turn cause famines), genocides (which generate refugees & famine), mistreatment of the land (which increases desert areas, and causes famine), bribery & corruption, Tribal conflicts (which also cause numerous issues like above) ?

Ultimately the answer to all of Africa's social, tribal, health and educational problems is a) infrastructural support involving governments and the IMF, EU etc. and secondary to this developed countries must supply these countries with temporary infrastructure and maintenance/ survival needs. Ideally the former would eclipse this need in time but until governments get their ass in gear others cant just abandon the cause

Now I'll ask my question again: Does anyone here propose that people just stop giving to charity tomorrow as a kind of 'charity strike' until the governemnts intervene when enough people die?

Hobbes

murt wrote:

It really is a shame when the mods have the most negitive views and publish them so feverently. Are the mods not supposed to stimulate thinking and conversation rather than poo poo on other's posts?

Mods are normal people too, especially outside of thier own forum. If Corinthian was in charge of a load of charity forums it might raise a few eyebrows, but he isn't and thats his opinion and he is allowed to voice it.

I also somewhat agree with him, although I don't have the time to expand on that yet. Will prehaps later.

Hobbes

Somewhat on topic Warren Buffets topic on giving cash to charity (by the daily show).

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=71157

"It's never been a better time to be a Sudonese orphan with aids. Those bitches have it made!"

Mean_Mudda

He said "I always thought...", as in past-tense, and he doesn't know if he actually would. No need to be so ****ing snappy

Or for him to be so sanctimonious.

He misreads the post and comes back accusing the OP of been "sanctimonious" when he clearly was not..

Please stop using the word coherent when you dont even appear to understand its meaning.

Indeed, sounds like this kid has learned some new words which he likes to
excercise weather appropiate or not.

post a coherent argument you’d get some too.

Ah, that's cute.. he likes to get his asslicked too..

He never suggested that all the aid goes astray.

Certainly sounded like he thinks most of it does,
Perhaps you misread that too ?
I second the request to quantify it..

The Corinthian

LovelyHurling wrote:

Please stop using the word coherent when you dont even appear to understand its meaning.

No, you accused me of suggesting the following:

Charity money is needed to stop people from dying in the short term, you cant just end it all of asudden.

Which I did not suggest. So try not to edit what’s been said to score points. It’s disingenuous.

Ultimately the answer to all of Africa's social, tribal, health and educational problems is a) infrastructural support involving governments and the IMF, EU etc. and secondary to this developed countries must supply these countries with temporary infrastructure and maintenance/ survival needs. Ideally the former would eclipse this need in time but until governments get their ass in gear others cant just abandon the cause

TBH this is off topic, but it’s also pretty much ridiculous too as you appear to place no onus of responsibility or effort onto Africa itself.

Now I'll ask my question again: Does anyone here propose that people just stop giving to charity tomorrow as a kind of 'charity strike' until the governemnts intervene when enough people die?

No one has proposed that. Only you.

Mean_Mudda wrote:

Indeed, sounds like this kid has learned some new words which he likes to excercise weather appropiate or not.

Irrelevant personal abuse.

Ah, that's cute.. he likes to get his asslicked too..

More irrelevant personal abuse.

Certainly sounded like he thinks most of it does,
Perhaps you misread that too ?

Do you actually intend to contribute anything to this thread or is this simply your troll account?

mountainyman

I don't believe that the Corinthian said that he would refuse to give to any given charity. He said that one should be aware of one's own motives.

However it has never been claimed that he said:
"Charity money is needed to stop people from dying in the short term, you cant just end it all of asudden."

Ragazzi Piantala.

MM

HarryD

Some interesting views here..

On the subject of choice:
While I know some people make bad choices in life, which
can sometimes result in homelessness/poverty..etc..
I don't think it justifies the rest of us treating them so
badly. We all make bad decisions at some stage in our lives
but it doesn't merit living a miserable existance for the rest of our lives.
A small amount of generosity on our behalf can yield a large
improvement in their quality of life.
Once down in the hole it's very difficult to get out.
Who's going to employ a homeless bum ?
Also, people in famine stricken don't choose to be born into
poverty.

On the subject of greed:
I believe survival is the most basic instinct of life.
If it wasn't I guess we wouldn't be here
Greed however I think is different, I don't think it's a basic instinct.

Greed, hate and any of the other negative qualities ... have been repeatedly observed in ... animals.

Can you give some examples of this, where survival is not the underlying motivation ?

On the subject of Charity:
I agree, charity is not the fundamental answer to the 3rd world problems.
However, charity will stop people for dying in the short term, giving
these countries a better chance of getting out of the hole they are in,
where they will eventually no longer need charity.
So as LovelyHurling asked, we can't go on a 'charity strike'.

I'm still no closer to justifing my greed

The Corinthian

HarryD wrote:

I believe survival is the most basic instinct of life.
If it wasn't I guess we wouldn't be here
Greed however I think is different, I don't think it's a basic instinct.

Can you give some examples of this, where survival is not the underlying motivation ?

Survival, be it of the individual or the species, could be applied as the underlying motivation to pretty much human or animal instincts. It still wouldn’t make greed or violence any less instinctive though, which is my and others’ point.

And as I said, humans are no different to other animals in this regard, so it’s hardly Society that makes us thus, as has been claimed. A classic example of how animals can be just as nasty as us (without any help from Society) is probably the Chimpanzee.

HarryD

The Corinthian wrote:

Survival, ...could be applied as the underlying motivation to pretty much [all] human ..instincts..

Yes, In the most of cases this is true.
But in todays society I feel there is too many examples of greed,
which is not motivated by survival.

EG: The person who spends 1M+ on their 3rd yacht/fast car,
while his fellow humans can't afford 20c for a food or
vaccine to save their kids lives.
I find this sick.

Yes, In the most of cases this is true.
But in todays society I feel there is too many examples of greed,
which is not motivated by survival.

So in your eyes any money earned not related directly to the needs of survival is greed? Sorry. Doesn't work for me. People earn what they have. What they choose to do with their earnings is up to them. Its a personal choice. And I wouldn't call that greed, but a choice.

EG: The person who spends 1M+ on their 3rd yacht/fast car,
while his fellow humans can't afford 20c for a food or
vaccine to save their kids lives.
I find this sick.

I find this to be life. Not sick. Just life. You don't know that this person hasn't a direct debit for 100 euro a month being given to aid. Just as we don't know if he doesn't give anything at all. You're basing this example of a person on how you perceive his/her life would be.

We could flip the coin, and the poor people that look at your life, and wonder how you can afford to spend 40-50 euro a month to have broadband (an example), when they can't eat or such.

It easy to point at people who are rich, because they lead such more alien lives. Perhaps look and give examples of the life you understand first, like what you spend your extra money on?

You see, I spend my money on myself (with the exception of some ISPCC donations). I don't see that as being selfish. I earn what I have, and I work hard so that I can live my life at the standard that I wish.

But if you want to see your not giving aid as being selfish, sick or whatever. Perhaps you should look at your own life first, rather than giving examples of Angelina Jolie, or some person who has a Aston Martin or such..... Understand where I'm coming from here?

HarryD

Deleted User wrote:

Perhaps you should look at your own life first, rather than giving examples of Angelina Jolie, or some person who has a Aston Martin or such..... Understand where I'm coming from here?

If you'd read my original post you'd see:

HarryD wrote:

I'm as much a hypocrite as Geldof.

Actually I did read your original post. What i'm saying still stands. You might call yourself a hypocrite here, but you're still advocating that people should give aid. You still threw out an example of someone's life you have no understanding of. At least I'm assuming not. Have you got a Aston martin or such tucked away?

The Corinthian

HarryD wrote:

Yes, In the most of cases this is true.
But in todays society I feel there is too many examples of greed,
which is not motivated by survival.

Actually it is - much like the difference between the fat domestic canines and their leaner wild cousins, or squirrels storing nuts for the winter. Humans, depending upon the scarcity of resources, behave no differently.

As you seem to be defining it, survival instinct deals with basic survival - just enough food, drink, etc. for a happy and healthy life, and as I’ve already pointed out, this is not how nature works.

EG: The person who spends 1M+ on their 3rd yacht/fast car,
while his fellow humans can't afford 20c for a food or
vaccine to save their kids lives.
I find this sick.

Now you may find this behaviour in humans morally repugnant, but that’s different to whether it is natural or not. I do think this point is important because if you really do want to change such behaviour, there’s no point in kidding yourself about where it comes from; otherwise you’ll simply fail in the long run.

mountainyman

Deleted User wrote:

People earn what they have.

In no sense accurate what about Prince Charles or Gavin O'Reilly.

MM

Fine. Most "people" earn what they have.

Some people inherit, or are given it by others. That is not to say that they don't have their own involvement in keeping it. While I'd never be inclined to say that Prince Charles earns all he's currently worth, he does spend his time in a manner that the English public desire. Without that desire, he wouldn't have the money/wealth.

Frankly I wouldn't sacrifice my private life & freedom for the wealth he gains from it. But then neither was I born into that life either.

As for Gavin O'Reilly, do you believe that in the last few years he hasn't had to prove his ability in order to gain that inheritance. Didn't he earn the right to take over from his father? Cause if he hadn't been seen as being capable I'm sure the other shareholders wouldn't have allowed such a changeover of control.

There are indeed many people out there that are handed wealth. Paris Hilton springs to mind. But the majority of people out there have to earn what they have, including the Gavin O'Reilly's and Prince Charles's. They've made their own sacrifices, just as you have decided not to make sacrifices, which may have made you wealthier.

I said this earlier. Wealth in many cases is about choice. We choose to accept what we're given. Whether we choose to become drug-addled, or choose not to attend school. Whether we choose to stay in Ierland or move to another country. Whether we choose to strive for that college grant, or choose to risk our security on an enterprise. Choice.

Responsibility. We are responsible for our own lives. The problem with this thread is that some posters seem to believe that poor people are not responsible for where they are. That they've never had any opportunities to change. That charity is their only hope.

RedPlanet

What makes people say that upending their lives and doing charity work in the 3rd world is any better than dropping a few quid into the charity basket?
If you consider the travel costs and the cost of maintaining a foreigner over there it may addup to more than you might think.

Perhaps it's best not to supplant foreigners there but just shove money (and food/clothes) at them and let them sort it out.

The Corinthian

RedPlanet wrote:

Perhaps it's best not to supplant foreigners there but just shove money (and food/clothes) at them and let them sort it out.

Who's them exactly? The governments of these countries? The local village elders (or warlords) in each affected region? I don’t think you’ve worked it all out.

RedPlanet

The Corinthian wrote:

Who's them exactly? The governments of these countries? The local village elders (or warlords) in each affected region? I don’t think you’ve worked it all out.

Them meaning: those that are afflicted. And yes that means any and all that you've mentioned.

The Corinthian

RedPlanet wrote:

Them meaning: those that are afflicted. And yes that means any and all that you've mentioned.

And if you give this aid to the local government/elders/warlords - how much of it do you think will actually get to those that are afflicted?

metrovelvet

People seem to be forgetting that there are beneficial bi products to selfishness.

If you take selfishness for granted in human nature you can work with it. US charities/non profits know this and have exploited it. The wealthy need to give to charity in order to save on taxes. The wealthy get to go to fancy dinners to meet and wheel and deal with other wealthy people, more money is made and more money gets donated. Meanwhile everyone gets to pat themselves on the back. Public figures get high profile attention for their generosity, which of course contributes to their PR and also their careers and thereby make more money, a portion of which they can donate to get tax breaks.

Aside from fiscal social responsibility,there is also the question of time. You cant just point the finger at the rich. What about people sitting on their asses all day? They can volunteer at a hospital, join a big brother,big sister program, the peace corps, give their time to literacy, etc. Can you afford to spare the luxury of time?