4 ms·
> Charity should also hurt. A poor woman giving $50 she could have used to eat, that hurts. The Bill Gates Foundation giving away $10M is barely noticed. The va
by randallsquared 3y ago
> Charity should also hurt. A poor woman giving $50 she could have used to eat, that hurts. The Bill Gates Foundation giving away $10M is barely noticed. The value of money is nonlinear.
Your idea of charity appears to be about ensuring the charitable suffer, rather than about relieving suffering for recipients. That seems like exactly the opposite view than that which would make everyone better off: it discourages charitable giving, rather than encouraging it. Is that your aim?
- glimshe 3y ago"Suffering" charity is also often unsustainable, hurting the people who depend on the charity in the long run. It can even be a mental disease; some people get a dopamine boost by giving money to others at the expense of their basic welfare. Not saying it is the case here, I'm just supporting your argument.
- SeanLuke 3y agoNo, I don't subscribe Mother Teresa's unfortunate philosophy. I'm pointing out that Objectivists going "Oooh Bill Gates gave away $100M, what a wonderful guy" should be smacked good and hard with a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Giving $100M was trivial for him to do.
- lusus_naturae 3y ago> Giving $100M was trivial for him to do. So? Expecting altruism to the point of self-sacrifice is narcissistic and selfish. I can appreciate however why humans have evolved to foster altruistic attitudes. The problem is that people with less affable personality types often manipulate, abuse or control such altruism, which is dangerous, counterproductive and inhumane.