That is how I feel exactly, I want to do whatever I can to make my future childrens life better than mine. I will volunteer my time, but there is no guarentee my money will get where it is supposed to go. I will put change or lose bills in the Salvation army bucket. But I won’t write a check for a chunk of my earnings and give that to the needy. And I won’t feel the slightest bit bad about it. No one would feel bad if I am down on my luck.
I once had a friend who was an extremely good person. He limited his goodness to the people like him (leftist pot-smokers), but within that circle, he was as kind to the outkasts of the outkasts as you’d hope to find anywhere. He’d offer hospitality to anyone in need. He’would have given the shirt of his back if you had asked.
In short, he behaved like the bible said a person should. He was a modern saint Whatshisname, the one who gave half his mantle to a beggar.
And his kind heart drove me totally bonkers !
Whenever I gave him something, he gave it away. I taught him something to solve his problems? Instead of bettering himself, he went on to spread the info among others. In short, I felt like I had a relationship with a human sieve. Whatever I gave him, it just leaked away. After a few months, I broke up with him.
Moral of the story? If you want to be " good" be sure you don’t do it on the time of the ones who love you.
“By what process do people justify the spending of money for non-essential items when there are people suffering for the essentials? This can also be applied to time: why is it okay to spend time watching TV or reading books when you should be volunteering at a hospital or food bank or something?”
Plain and simple, people do things that are pleasurable.
They don’t constantly think of minute actions and how it will effect the whole damned world, otherwise nothing would get done.
Nobody (smart) gargles their mouth after brushing their teeth and think,
“Gee maybe I shouldn’t gargle and leave a tiny amount of water for some other people I’ve never seen before.”
Humans are basic in nature. They do things that are tangible. Giving money to people you don’t even know actually exist is intangible. It’s like stocks vs real estate. People don’t understand the stock market as well they do real estate because stocks are more intangible (though they do represent a real share of a tangible company).
I don’t disagree, nor will I defend the lack of genuine effort by the developed world to assist Third World nations. Properly distributed, even a small pittance of the US GNP would provide significant relief and opportunity to the populations of undeveloped nations. However, just throwing money at the problem, or insisting on grave sacrifice in lifestyle by developed nations in order to support the Third World will accomplish little or nothing, and just serves to feed unchecked corruption. The solution to this problems ultimately lies with the undeveloped nations themselves; they and their populations have to grow into self-governance, something that even the upwardly developing African nations like South Africa are struggling with, competing against ignorance, superstition, and tribal allegience.
It doesn’t help that the majority of self-styled charitable organizations, including the NGOs heavily funded by the nations of Western Europe, exist primarily to justify their own existance; they spend aid money on shiny white Land Cruisers, large modern housing developments (sans infrastructure or consideration for the lifestyle of the native population), and big hospitals that are abandoned in a few years and left to rot after revolt or political unrest causes volunteers to flee. Meanwhile, local middlemen line their pockets and sell off supplies to other nations in return for guns, drugs, and bling. It’s a nasty, wasteful, vicious cycle that is perpetuated as long as the people of these nations are unable to provide for themselves.
It’s a mess, and there’s no simple answer. But depriving one’s self of reasonable material comforts isn’t going to affect that situation one bit. If you’re truely umbraged about the situation the best thing you can spend is your time and intellect, not your cash. Unless, of course, you’re Bill Gates, in which case you’ve got the dough and the clout to provide aid directly to those who need it.
Stranger
All the great works of art, the paintings, symphonies, and statues, exist because people spent money on them. Every rock band from the lamest boy band to the coolest indie band, depends for their existence on people spending discretionary income on their music. Many people make their living based on discretionary spending, from the guy who builds Plasma TVs to the waitress at the nearby high-end restaurant.
Discretionary spending is the fuel that drives human artistic creativity. Without it the world would be a grayer, bleaker, artless place. And the poor would still be with us.
Furthermore, we’re just human beings. We want good things, rewards, things that make day to day life bearable. Even the OP has a cat. I wouldn’t want to live at all without my books, my cats, good food and drink, music. Poor people want these things too. My mom grew up poor on a Minnesota farm coming out of the great depression. She had six siblings and very little stuff. Now she enjoys her fine wines, travel, and other luxuries. Why shouldn’t she?
Don’t get me wrong. My liberal sensibilities are as enraged as anyone else’s by modern American greed. I despise the vulgarity of Palm Springs, the vacuity of the Hilton sisters. But surely there’s a middle way between Paris Hilton and the abject self denial the OP suggests. Live benevolently, give to charity, think about where your money goes, be kind to those around you. I won’t say I’ve lived the most ethical life, far from it. But I don’t think I’m a monster either.
That is an unsubstantiated claim. But see below.
I don’t doubt that certain aid institutions are inefficient or even counterproductive. But you are painting with a broad brush. I can’t see how this applies to Doctors Without Borders. And GAVI is known for redirecting funding away from corrupt situations, so as to secure the most bang for their buck.
If you make substantiated claims about specific aid organizations that are lacking, please do: it would aid the fight against ignorance, not to mention poverty. (Though in this context it would be better to leave the World Bank out of it: they don’t accept private donations AFAIK, and a valid assessment would catalogue their hits and misses.)
Finally, I’ll remind readers that anti-poverty programs also occur in Asia, which, generally speaking, has experienced a more successful developmental process, with a few large exceptions.
Personally, I think that we shouldn’t be indifferent to human suffering, just because we can’t see it.
I’m not “indifferent” to it. It is just way down on my list of priorities, mainly because I know that any actions on my part are generally doomed to either failure or ineffectiveness. I can, however, have a major impact on my local area. Can any action I take help stem the spread of AIDS in Africa? Nope. Can any action I take help keep one of my students off drugs or not pregnant? You bet. I spend my limited time and energies where they will do something.
Albert Hirshman notes 3 categories of justification: futility, perversity and jeopardy. Now sometimes these effects apply empirically; the justification part comes in when people quickly reach for these conclusions in the absence of a considered weighing of the evidence. IMHO, anybody with disposable income can, with proper study, assist third world development in a meaningful way.
As it happens, there’s an organization modeled on GAIM (discussed above) called The Global Fund To Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. At the same time, I admit I know less about this operation.
Now, your sentiments are not uncommon silenus and I don’t mean to pick on you. Indeed, I see these issues and evasions as part of the human condition.
------- Can any action I take help keep one of my students off drugs or not pregnant? You bet.
Not that it means anything, but anybody who intervenes in such a manner probably gets a free pass in my book.
I think less of those who attain a professional salary and believe that responsibility is a trait that applies only to the less fortunate. Though even in their case, I admit to considerable equanimity.
I’d like to comment on a narrower point.
Realistically, no grave sacrifices in lifestyle will occur: the idea is a nonstarter. The issue on the table concerns individual actions and charitable adjustments at the margin. By that I mean, “at the margin for 1st world budgets”; they could involve considerable sacrifice for our hypothetical saint.
Furthermore if grave sacrifices actually transpired among developed countries in bizarro world, the resulting aid should and would I would argue, become a function of sound practices in developing countries.
Well, sure. You could make a substantial, life-changing effort in the life of someone in the Third World for the cost of a luxury package upgrade on a car. The truth is that, at least for Americans, most could easily afford to donate a modest fraction of earnings without any measureable reduction in standard of living. But there seems to be a massive disconnect between the aid–billions of dollars worth, which should theoretically be enough to provide sustanance to the peoples of Africa–and the actual benefit received. Making a greater sacrifice isn’t going to improve that margin. There’s something fundamentally broken, or at least savagely twisted, with regard to how much of the provided aid is disseminated.
I presume that you make this assertion based upon the notion that citizens upon whom such a sacrifice is predicated would in turn demand accountabilty for their absconded funds; however, I point you to post-Eisenhower-era defense spending in which a significant portion of the tax revenue was used to fund military and technical programs displaying varying degrees of worthiness and in which corruption and graft was rampant. In any given year between 1960 and, say, 1990, one can find blocks of billions of dollars expended without any tangable product or significant improvement in strategic capability whatsoever. “A billion here and a billion there…” is a platitude that applies to any massive bureaucracy, whether it handles guns or potatos.
Stranger
Ok, you’ve moved from “charitable giving” (by NGOs) to “foreign aid” (by governments). You’ve also maintained a certain nonspecificity. (For example, aid to Zaire was never done out of the goodness of the US’s heart; it was mainly a strategic bulwark against Soviet incursions. Unsurprisingly, we got what we paid for.)
To be clear, not all dollars flowing abroad are equivalent. There’s a huge difference between a dollar donated to Doctors Without Borders and a dollar sent to Feed the Children.
That’s a very fine point, actually. I will backpeddle, but note that we still haven’t figured out a transparent method of comparing military expenditure to enhanced domestic security. Measuring outcomes in anti-poverty programs is somewhat easier, though not cheap and not a given, contrary to what I said earlier.
Heh. That’s what I said - eupraxophy.
At dictionary.com, a search for eupraxophy gives nothing. (“Do you mean eupraxia, the normal ability to perform coordinated movements?” Probably not.)
At Wikipdedia, we learn the following:
Oh, you meant eupraxsophy! Why didn’t you say so? 
Yes, but isn’t all happiness pursued at the expense of others? People living in America/the West can sustain our quality of life (which includes things like steaks and movies) only on the suffering of people in the third world. I forget what the exact ratio is, but it takes a whole lot of grain to make one pound of beef. That grain could be used to feed a lot more people than the beef can. Or consider the example of an American going overseas to give aid. That seems like an extremely selfless thing to do, and on first glance I’d totally think it is, but if they really wanted to help the world they’d just stay home. Airplanes use oil, which leads to oil wars, and rich tycoons prosper from the tickets one buys, even if the person who’s flying hates those tycoons and all they stand for. They would do better for the third worlders if they got a job, even a shitty one, here and funneled all money not desperately needed for expenses to the third world, bypassing big-name charities.
I guess I just don’t see how happiness is possible once one calculates up all the ways in which one takes up too much space and consumes too many resources (and I am just as guilty of that as anyone). It just looks like willful blindness from here, to not be conscious of these things 24/7 even if you do things that go against the “rules” of being “good.”
I have heard this quote before, and it really bothers me. He says “you won’t always have me,” thereby placing himself as being of higher importance than the poor, and isn’t Jesus supposed to be completely self-abdicating? I admit I don’t know as much about Christianity as I should, but this quote always seemed to go against what I’ve always thought Jesus’ nature to be. And if you do not believe in the power of rituals like anointing (like me), then you might see it as a waste even if the anointment is used on a deity. I think the same thing about pretty much all ceremonial functions like funerals, weddings, etc. Obviously these are important to a lot of people and I’m not knocking those who believe in them, but I think to say that a ritual is as important as something physical that accomplishes a tangible amount of good. But as you know, I’m an agnostic and skeptical about every single thing ever.
And no, I didn’t hear about the knitting festival. That’s too bad, I was away this weekend but my housemate might have liked to go.
I’ll come back to this thread later–too tired to type more right now.
“Why not?” and a shrug are a perfectly valid response. Redistribute your personal wealth as you see fit and I’ll do the same with mine.