3 ms·

I don't see how this is any different. Where does the proposition, "do good directly, with your own mind and hands", lead? Should the first step not be "conside

I don't see how this is any different. Where does the proposition, "do good directly, with your own mind and hands", lead? Should the first step not be "consider who is most in need"? Should the next stop not be "consider how best to help them"? And should the last step not be "help them in that way"? It almost seems like you're arguing against examining the problem at all. What would the world look like if everybody just quit their jobs so they could do good "directly"? They'd realize pretty quick they needs planes and ships to move people and things, and farmers to grow food. Not to mention doctors and chemists to develop and administer medicine. If they were smart about it, they'd end up allocating their own time to the things they were best at, and then liquidate and donate any excess they produce. If you just follow your heart, in the most basal sense, you will probably do some good and you will likely feel very good about it. Which is great for you, and good for those you help. There's nothing wrong with that. But that approach will never help those afflicted with malaria, because your heart doesn't know about them. Your head has to hear about them. And then your head has to tell you not to fly down there yourself, because if everybody did that then there'd be nobody back here running air traffic control or formulating medicine.

yrimaxi 6y ago
You’ve set up a convenient dichotomy where one through pure reason alone arrives at the inevitable conclusion that one should “liquidate and donate any excess they produce”, or else one is merely being driven by pure sentiment/feel-goodiness. For some reason though it is only these tunnel-vision engineer types that seem to be sentimentally drawn towards this oh so obvious conclusion. (As an example: a socialist will probably not think that making the most money possible and then giving a lot of it away is the most ethical thing to do.) And yes, of course my obvious point is that everyone should just quit their jobs and travel to Africa.
- rcoveson 6y ago
  I'm just trying to give examples, not set up a dichotomy. There's certainly a very wide range of ways to be charitable. For example, you could be charitable in this discussion by not lampooning those who disagree you as "tunnel-vision engineer types." I'd like to hear more specifically how you think people should approach charity. Surely some people actually should travel to Africa? And some should not. I'm not sure why you're being sarcastic about quitting one's job and traveling to Africa in a conversation about charity. It's not an insane thing to do. The point I was trying to make was that not everybody can do it, and that some people can actually do more good by just being excellent at their current job.

yrimaxi 6y ago

You’ve set up a convenient dichotomy where one through pure reason alone arrives at the inevitable conclusion that one should “liquidate and donate any excess they produce”, or else one is merely being driven by pure sentiment/feel-goodiness. For some reason though it is only these tunnel-vision engineer types that seem to be sentimentally drawn towards this oh so obvious conclusion. (As an example: a socialist will probably not think that making the most money possible and then giving a lot of it away is the most ethical thing to do.) And yes, of course my obvious point is that everyone should just quit their jobs and travel to Africa.

rcoveson 6y ago
I'm just trying to give examples, not set up a dichotomy. There's certainly a very wide range of ways to be charitable. For example, you could be charitable in this discussion by not lampooning those who disagree you as "tunnel-vision engineer types." I'd like to hear more specifically how you think people should approach charity. Surely some people actually should travel to Africa? And some should not. I'm not sure why you're being sarcastic about quitting one's job and traveling to Africa in a conversation about charity. It's not an insane thing to do. The point I was trying to make was that not everybody can do it, and that some people can actually do more good by just being excellent at their current job.