Justification for luxury living

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?

bonkey

metrovelvet wrote:

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

Sure.

The exploiter makes (say) a million over-and-above what would be fair (i.e. he's greedy), and then gives ten grand back to charity.

Thats a great deal.

m1ke

Many justifications seem to have been trotted out as to why people should and shouldn't live in luxury / why people should give to charity etc...

But it all boils down to this point: why are people so unequal?

Well they are, so get over it... and stop thinking charity is the answer

Earthhorse

There's an interesting review of Robert Calediri's "The Problem with Africa" on Salon today, http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/07/05/caldirisi/, for those interested*.

I do think that aid to Africa works but it is not enough on its own. Social change needs to be part of the solution but it is impossible to manufacture that.

*(You may need to view an ad to read the article but it will be work safe and won't take long).

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote:

I do think that aid to Africa works but it is not enough on its own. Social change needs to be part of the solution but it is impossible to manufacture that.

Sure it works. For the short term. But it doesn't change anything. The African people clasp their tribal cultures close to their chests regardless of what they do in life. Whether they work in factories, offices, in schools, hospitals etc, the African people still look to their tribal leaders to lead them. And more often than not these tribal leaders call for war.

Most countries in the world have gone through the tribal thing already. It developed on its own into organised religion, and people became settled because of it. Africa hasn't. Despite the spread of organised religion, Africans love to kill each other, simply based on some tribal difference, or a religious faith.

I agree that Social change needs to occur. The only people capable of creating, maintaining, and bringing this change to a finish are the African people themselves. All foreign Aid does is delay them from achieving this realisation, because they can continue killing each other funded by the West.

Earthhorse

There are some charities, Self Help for instance - who promote and implement integrated sustainable development programmes in rural Africa, that are focused on the long term. So they do more than help in the short term. I doubt they are the only charity taking such an approach.

People may not want to face up to the fact that social doesn't just happen in big cultural upheavals but can take place on a smaller scale over a longer period of time.

I don't know that African's "love" to kill each other any more than anyone else on the planet nor would I agree with your assertion that aid allows them to continue killing each other funded by the west.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote:

There are some charities, Self Help for instance - who promote and implement integrated sustainable development programmes in rural Africa, that are focused on the long term. So they do more than help in the short term. I doubt they are the only charity taking such an approach.

I haven't said that all aid was ineffective. I said earlier that it was the money being thrown at them that causes more trouble. However the aid that comes in the form of volunteer work, building, and education is excellent. I just don't believe that supplying food will help those people change their cultures.

People may not want to face up to the fact that social doesn't just happen in big cultural upheavals but can take place on a smaller scale over a longer period of time.

I doubt too many people would say that it doesn't happen both ways. Society, any society, changes constantly in minor ways. Our own western Irish society changes minutely all the time. As does the cultures with the continent of Africa.

I don't know that African's "love" to kill each other any more than anyone else on the planet nor would I agree with your assertion that aid allows them to continue killing each other funded by the west.

Well, I'd look to the tribes that seek to wipe each other (man, woman, child) off the face of the planet. Actions like Rwanda spring to mind. Aid that is sent to areas under civil war, trouble with rebels, or famine invariably is siezed by the military or police. Very little actually gets to the civilians, unless its guarded the whole way by foreign troops.

I'm not suggesting that ALL aid ends up this way. I've never said that. Its my belief from reading about these wars for the last two decades, that material aid like food or medicines, rarely reach the civilians in any real measure, and that it instead goes to the very people that helped cause their trouble in the first place.

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote:

I haven't said that all aid was ineffective. ...I just don't believe that supplying food will help those people change their cultures.

No, you didn't. But you did say that it "doesn't change anything". I'm saying that in certain cases it does change things.

Deleted User wrote:

Well, I'd look to the tribes that seek to wipe each other (man, woman, child) off the face of the planet. Actions like Rwanda spring to mind. Aid that is sent to areas under civil war, trouble with rebels, or famine invariably is siezed by the military or police. Very little actually gets to the civilians, unless its guarded the whole way by foreign troops.

I'm not suggesting that ALL aid ends up this way. I've never said that. Its my belief from reading about these wars for the last two decades, that material aid like food or medicines, rarely reach the civilians in any real measure, and that it instead goes to the very people that helped cause their trouble in the first place.

I don't know that these tribes or civil wars are different to those that take place anywhere else in the world. It is just your throwaway phrasing, that "Africans love to kill each other", that suggests there is something inherent about Africans that makes peace unachieveable. It's true that a lot of aid will not get through to war torn areas where it is difficult to work but Africa is a big place and there are plenty of agencies working exclusively in peaceful regions. So I think suggesting that aid rarely reaches citizens in any real measure is ignoring this and throwing too much focus on areas that grab the headlines.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote:

No, you didn't. But you did say that it "doesn't change anything". I'm saying that in certain cases it does change things.

Everything has the opportunity to change the cultures involved. A bug flying into a window screen might encourage an African leader to seek peace over trying to murder half his population. Or it might not.

The Aid you speak of may indeed change things in favour of peace and prosperity. Or it may not. It certainly hasn't to date for longer than a few years.

Guess I just wonder should we look to other means to change things, than trying to save them from themselves.

I don't know that these tribes or civil wars are different to those that take place anywhere else in the world. It is just your throwaway phrasing, that "Africans love to kill each other", that suggests there is something inherent about Africans that makes peace unachieveable.

Before Britain and the other European powers cut Africa into domains, the Africans wandered as tribes, and committed their own wars of genocides. During the occupation of the European powers, the Africans retained their tribal beliefs while being shuffled around the continent by european motives. As such tribal beliefs that have for thousands of years hated each other, are immersed forever together.

African peoples have had their own wars for centuries. European/western influence has done very little to influence them away from that. It will only be when they decide that it needs to be ended that this will stop. And that is what i mean by saying that Africans love to kill each other. Look at the nations that suffer civil war, or genocide. In many cases, these were productive countries that turned upon themselves.

It's true that a lot of aid will not get through to war torn areas where it is difficult to work but Africa is a big place and there are plenty of agencies working exclusively in peaceful regions. So I think suggesting that aid rarely reaches citizens in any real measure is ignoring this and throwing too much focus on areas that grab the headlines.

Grab the headlines? I've found that so much in Africa doesn't grab the headlines, because people are more interested in Iraq or in the US. People don't really care about the troubles that happen in Africa, because we've seen it all before, so the media hardly even bothers anymore.

Africa is indeed huge. For every country that has a war, there's one with peace. For every one suffering a famine, there's others that don't. Some countries are highly productive & successful. Others are beyond poor, and sink deeper each year.

If you want to read about Africa, you can find plenty of material. But you won't find that much information through Western Media, unless it directly impacts on our comforts.

But in many cases, I have watched successful countries rip themselves apart due to religion, tribal differences, territorial ambitions, racial tensions, etc. That is why I see that giving aid (material, not knowledge) doesn't help in the long run. The African people (overall) need to learn for themselves before anything will change.

Earthhorse

Okay, I guess I was a little loose in my use of the term "aid", which I extended to charities like Self Help who impart knowledge, as well as materials, to Africa. I believe it is this kind of strategy that will effect real change in Africa, or at least stands a better chance, but you won't read about it because they can't change whole countries at a time.

I think we're actually pretty much agreeing on what's happening and what needs to happen. When you say "should we look to other means to change things, than trying to save them from themselves" do you have anything in mind?

RedPlanet

The Corinthian wrote:

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?

TBH, that's not really my concern.
Aid distribution is on his(their) conscience, not mine.
I really have no business poking my nose into their affairs.
Besides, where does that type of thing lead?
Aid shouldn't have strings attached, isn't that what the US or World Bank gets up to?
Aid given once said country sign-over rights to water, or oil for example.