4 ms·
The comparison is valid only if monetary generosity is linked with empathy. It seems as unproven a statement as saying monetary giving frees people from the di
by tinymollusk 9y ago
The comparison is valid only if monetary generosity is linked with empathy. It seems as unproven a statement as saying monetary giving frees people from the dirtier emotional work of empathizing.
Societally, not sure it matters much. OTOH, I think it's probably more fair to compare church giving relative to the tax breaks they receive, rather than simply say they give a lot. They do, but it's amplified by a tax deduction, which isn't available to emotionally supporting/empathetic people.
There is, of course, no reason someone couldn't be in both camps, but this comment is long and rambling already.
- prepend 9y agoThis is interesting. How would you quantify empathy? It’s pretty hard to compare. Perhaps donations isn’t the right measure. What is more accurate?
- tinymollusk 9y agoI'm not sure I have a solution for quantifying. Even defining "empathetic acts" is something I struggle with. To me, the crux is whether someone puts themselves in the shoes of a less fortunate person. You can do this without helping, just like you can help without doing this. Anecdotally, the homeless people I've spent time talking to seem to appreciate the conversation (or maybe being treated as a human being?) as much or more than the dollar or two I frequently give. Utilitarianism might suggest donations as a decent proxy. Can't say I disagree, although I'd like to know how generous churches can be if they didn't receive a tax break.