Why charity is bullshit

...because there is a finite amount of matter in existence?

 

Which means there is also a finite number of humans to consume them. There wasn't always an economy, and animals don't have need of one either.

 

Rich guy dies and leaves his worldly possessions to his alcoholic wife and greedy son who squander his money on extravagant excess. The mother and son file for bankruptcy and spend the rest of their lives living in a one room tenement apartment

Hotwater

 

I think there's always going to be enough food water etc for everyone to survive in this world, nobody has to starve to death.

But the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and most people in day to day existence (of the rich side of course...) are okay with that.

 

I can't decide if you are thinking far too much in 'ideal' realm of thinking or not thinking at all.
The key point of my initial statement was the -efficient- allocation of scarce resources.
In the history of modern human beings, yes- there always was some form of economy. What separates humans from other animals is, for one thing, the ability to cooperate and negotiate to be able to live outside of our basic means.
If goods exist, so does trading. That's what an economy is. Trading a stone tool for some meat is participating in the economy at the time.

So, let's move to thinking about non-human animals. How does an animal get what it needs to live? Not by trading or negotiating, but by stealing or killing a good portion of the time. Are you advocating we live like primal animals?
I should walk into a store and kill the clerk and steal his food, or hell- maybe even eat him?

It is impossible for everyone on Earth to have everything thing they want, even when it comes straight out of the ground. These resources are scarce because there is not an infinite supply of them for everyone, and there never will be.

 

Maybe not for everyone to have everything they want, but I think it's possible for everyone to have what they NEED to survive.

 

If socialism cannot even work in a single county, is would be disastrous on a global scale.

Let's think about this: Ideally everyone would have what they need to survive.
but...they don't. Resources are distributed unevenly across the globe. So, if my country has something that another country needs, we should just give it to them? So that country benefits while this one is hurt. We would never make that choice. Someone would have to force us to.
Do you think it is wise to give a single entity control of global economics?
(hint: It's not)
Besides, what defines 'basic needs' anyway?

>See: Singer's Solution to World Poverty (and why it fails)

 

I'm in the 1% of the world and I'm perfectly fine with that

 

According to a good friend of mine (I put this as I've not reaserched it properly my self), alot of charities are run more like businesses. even when they state "not for profit" there are aparently ways around this and big corporate interest in it.

I'll have to ask him more about it.

 

animals sometimes starve when their numbers or their food supplies get off balance.

also, animals aren't people, so they have different methods of survival than people do. humans don't have need of fangs and the ability to run 60 mph, but that doesn't make cheetahs wrong for utilizing those things.

 

depends on what you actually give, and who and how you actually give it to.

large "charitable' organizations tend to have a greater then 50% overhead, so yah, writing a check to them is mostly bullshit. but supporting causes that want changes you personally know to make the world less screwed up for people it is needlessly screwed up for, is probably a good thing. depends on how well you've actually done you're own 'homework' about them though.

sure anything you give is as likely to come and go as anything you get. but the feeling of being able to, when you are, that's kind of rewarding. so much so that its what some people live for.

each of us are different, so for each of us it takes its own and different form.
personally i can't stand being around humans any more then i absolutely have to.

not a matter of dislike. i just feel more secure about an impersonal universe.

the real charity of course, is to create a world where no one is left out of what means something to them. this is something there are no end of excuses to deny, but everything necessary to doing so exists. its a matter of cultural priorities only that it isn't being done. and all the excuses, none of them truly honest or accurate, for choosing and refusing to do so.

 

Human action is a result of human thought. Thoughts precede actions.


The act of charity is a result of thoughts or motivation. The motivations for charity are probably as varied as the humans themselves who perform charitable acts. But I’ll offer a few possible motivations for charity:

1) Religious duty
2) Personal satisfaction
3) Compassion

 

And with this explanation, which is correct for the most part and for most people, don't confuse "charity" with "charities"....... While some charities exist for the same reasons others exist so the CEO of that Not-For-Profit can take home a 6 figure salary.

 

Wish that was true , their are people starving to death in africa as we speak .What with warlords, dictators ,civil wars and droughts -famine , disease and death are rife here.Charities play a large part in keeping people alive but im sure that corruption creeps into charties as well.Mans inhumanity to man is common place in this world .

 

You obviously weren't prebeat as a child.

 

The logic here is pretty ridiculous.

So there are just fruit trees everywhere and they are free? I can just go into my neighbours gardens and help myself? That's just not how it is. Even if I could, it is winter here in Canada, nothing is growing.

If you want something, you have to work for it. Unfortunately, there are too many people who would rather have it handed to them because they think the world owes them.

 

That is called politics, displaying shrewdness, tact, or cunning.

 

Granted, there are some that do this. It seems to be the general thought these days, at least in the US, that everybody that is on any kind of assistance is a "lowlife crackhead" scamming the government..... I'm getting kind of tired of that crap as much as I'm tired of those that have abused the system. Not everybody that needs charity, or some kind of assistance thinks it's "owed them" and are lazy.... some people just really need some help.

 

The only problem I have with charity is the fact that it exists at all. At least in regards to homeless, and starving people. Why? Because this is a needless, and totally preventable problem, which is exacerbated purely by the obscene mis-distribution of wealth in our world. Where some have nothing, and some have far more than they will ever need. With the amount of wealth in our world, things like homelessness and starving people shouldn't exist.

Charity exists purely so those who are priviledged can feel a bit better about themselves, whilst the actual problems that create poverty are never actually solved, when they could easily be. The problem is, the only people with the real power to prevent this obscene travesty have absolutely no interest in doing so. It's a vicious cycle in which charity doesn't even make a small dent in. Charity in this instance creates a smokescreen, convincing the oridnary person on the street with a moderate or low income, that they can help. When in reality, the only people who actually do have the power to help, (those in positions of power and obscene wealth) simply don't want to.

But charity as in wanting to help others can only be a good thing, and I always help as much as I can. And I do give to children's and animal charities, because they do such great work.

 

Charity is not bullshit.

Those that feel they need to be recognized for being charitable are.

If one thing that is done is a positive in someone else's life then it is a good thing.

That is not charity, that should just be humanity.