4 ms·

That's just a trade. If we assume "charity" is "altruism," then by definition there must be no benefit to the giver.

freedomben 3y ago
I don't think that's even possible, but if it was it would be a disaster because humans don't work that way. We respond to incentive. When giving to charity, the incentive can be as simple as "I feel good" but it's still an incentive.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Some do what's right even if it doesn't feel good. The best charity can be painful.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Definitely, but the pain was decided to be worth it because the feeling the person got from doing the thing (or the pain they avoided by doing the thing) was worth it. For example a friend of mine has an adult kid who is homeless. They have tried to help many times but this person keeps falling back into the same things that led to the situation in the first place. The pain of watching your child go through something can be an incentive to help. My friend has helped his son even though my friend isn't well off and experiences financial pain. He's still responding to an incentive (that of not wanting to watch his child suffer) even though he's experiencing pain from it. If a person believes they are doing the right thing, their brain will release dopamine (aka a reward) simply for acting within their belief system. To be clear, I'm not trying to minimize or dismiss people's sacrifices. I still think they are noble
  - unshavedyak 3y ago
    What? Pain has nothing to do with this. The positives outweigh the negatives by whatever criteria the giver uses to decide to do the act of giving. This is always true. No? Even self sacrifice, such as jumping in front of a bus, you deem to be the right thing - you chose an action because you believed it was a positive, for you, action. Just because you die doesn't mean you didn't still felt it was right, in that moment. If you do something you do not believe is a positive it changes from charity to masochism. You're doing it to punish yourself. If you're not punishing yourself, you're gaining something (or net neutral, i suppose, but that's difficult to define). edit: Though arguably even punishing yourself is self interest, as if you're punishing yourself it's because you want to.
unshavedyak 3y ago
How can it be a trade if one party gave nothing to the other party? If one company gets good PR and a group gets something for free, how is that a trade? One party can benefit and give nothing, while the other party still benefits. I've literally never done anything charitable by your definition then, because i do it because it makes me feel good. I like helping others. Perhaps the only charitable companies or people are masochists? Hah
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Ask yourself, would your charity exist without your benefits? If no than you've always done it for your self interest.
  - unshavedyak 3y ago
    Not sure i follow. _everyone does everything for their self interests_. That is why raising "good people" is about helping them embrace the good feelings of being "selfless". The only time i can think of (off the top of my head) where you would give but by no will of your own is to avoid negative outcomes like judgment from others. It's still, just like everything, in your self interest - you're just choosing to avoid pain rather than strictly acquire pleasure.

I don't think that's even possible, but if it was it would be a disaster because humans don't work that way. We respond to incentive. When giving to charity, the incentive can be as simple as "I feel good" but it's still an incentive.

ipaddr 3y ago
Some do what's right even if it doesn't feel good. The best charity can be painful.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Definitely, but the pain was decided to be worth it because the feeling the person got from doing the thing (or the pain they avoided by doing the thing) was worth it. For example a friend of mine has an adult kid who is homeless. They have tried to help many times but this person keeps falling back into the same things that led to the situation in the first place. The pain of watching your child go through something can be an incentive to help. My friend has helped his son even though my friend isn't well off and experiences financial pain. He's still responding to an incentive (that of not wanting to watch his child suffer) even though he's experiencing pain from it. If a person believes they are doing the right thing, their brain will release dopamine (aka a reward) simply for acting within their belief system. To be clear, I'm not trying to minimize or dismiss people's sacrifices. I still think they are noble
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  What? Pain has nothing to do with this. The positives outweigh the negatives by whatever criteria the giver uses to decide to do the act of giving. This is always true. No? Even self sacrifice, such as jumping in front of a bus, you deem to be the right thing - you chose an action because you believed it was a positive, for you, action. Just because you die doesn't mean you didn't still felt it was right, in that moment. If you do something you do not believe is a positive it changes from charity to masochism. You're doing it to punish yourself. If you're not punishing yourself, you're gaining something (or net neutral, i suppose, but that's difficult to define). edit: Though arguably even punishing yourself is self interest, as if you're punishing yourself it's because you want to.

unshavedyak 3y ago

How can it be a trade if one party gave nothing to the other party? If one company gets good PR and a group gets something for free, how is that a trade? One party can benefit and give nothing, while the other party still benefits. I've literally never done anything charitable by your definition then, because i do it because it makes me feel good. I like helping others. Perhaps the only charitable companies or people are masochists? Hah

ipaddr 3y ago
Ask yourself, would your charity exist without your benefits? If no than you've always done it for your self interest.
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  Not sure i follow. _everyone does everything for their self interests_. That is why raising "good people" is about helping them embrace the good feelings of being "selfless". The only time i can think of (off the top of my head) where you would give but by no will of your own is to avoid negative outcomes like judgment from others. It's still, just like everything, in your self interest - you're just choosing to avoid pain rather than strictly acquire pleasure.