Thread: What is this philosphy?

I voted to save the poor starving child

but the reason why is those words are a direct question of choosing between A or B

I mean when you go to the store and you want an electronic, its not a choice of buy electronic or save starving child. YOU COULD DO BOTH. you can buy an electronic, walk by a donation booth and donate. Helping someone, and our own abundance is not an A or B choice.

my personal problem is, I don't have real confidence in donating money to begin with. or even the programs that we have, like 'adopting' a starving child by sending them money that sends them to school and what not. most of these programs were started by westerners without the care of what locals have had to say

the westerner says "just give them money and buy them food duurrr-hhuuuh" when the locals who have been wanting to end this poverty in their own nation knew you can't just give food to children and then send them home to parents who have nothing.

it is the parents who need to be able to feed their own children. it is the parents who need jobs to support themselves. to get their lives on track, and be a happier family. rather than the western programs which helps the child get food, get an education, but ignore the rest of the family still suffering. how do you think this makes their family as a whole feel? how does the child feel to watch their parents or grandparents or who ever die slowly, wondering why the same people helping them, are not willing to help their loved ones?

we've been trying to save the children for so many years. the truth is, if they have parents, they are the burden of their parents. they are not our burden.

the real question is why have these parents been unable to support their family. that is the real problem and only looking at how to help the parents can we see real solutions. real solutions that END STARVATION, rather than just constantly having these people live off donations.

give them the means to feed themselves. then the children can have a real family that supports them in every way

Originally Posted by juroara

I voted to save the poor starving child

but the reason why is those words are a direct question of choosing between A or B

Cant everything be measured down to A or B? Even if you save some starving kid and buy a electronic, couldnt the money from the electronic buy another starving kid? I think this question signifies the ignorant bliss where if people dont see suffering they dont care.

Originally Posted by justme

Go awnser poll up there, then read on....


Ok so I remember I read this or something but this dude brought up the fact that or something that if you had to chose between saving a childs life from hungar in Africa or buy a new electronic? Of course people would want to save the child, but the dude mentions the fact that every time you spend money on an electronic, that money could be used saving that child. Very thought provoking, I been thinking something of a simular idea. Lets say you have a bag of cookies.Some one ask for a cookie. You say no. They say FU. Does that make u a worse person then someone who doesnt have any cookies to give?

Pretty funny topic. When saw the poll results, I was like: What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. There is nothing that is stopping people from giving that 200$ to a single African kid that would, and will, die of tuberculosis unless he gets some (relatively) pretty cheap medicine. The dude is right.

At least I admit I don't give a shit. It appears 60% of people are so fucking hypocritical and stupid that they don't see every time they buy an iPod or flat-screen TV, they are making the choice not to save a starving kid. It is not like 5 seconds of thought couldn't give people that insight, they are just hypocritical lazy fucks.

-

Oh and juroara, you are knowingly letting African kids die every day. You can say it is not your responsibility, or whatever, and that is fine, but you can't deny that no matter how you put it, by your lack of action you let people die. Even if only 1% of the money you give to a charity goes to an African kid, you could have saved dozens of lives, instead of buying stuff like the computer you use. Thus: You're a Hypocrite, or you admit you value your life more than 1, or even 10, African kids.

Out of sight, out of mind.
I wanted to vote to save the starving child, but I glanced through the thread and saw Neruo's post. I can think about utopias and equality, peace for all. But the truth is that I can't think of the last time I considered starving people around the world. I've probably seen dozens of images and adverts for charities, but I've rarely thought about it, or been emotionally effected by it. Reality is, I don't give a shit. But hey, I play the free rice game from time to time. There is nothing stopping me or you helping people right now (And I don't really mean that game).

Personally I don't ever spend any money. I'm saving everything for university, so I'm not sure how the question would apply to me. I'm also going into a career in scientific research for my own curiousity's sake but also for the betterment of humanity, instead of seeking material wealth in the city (which I could quite easily do after my maths degree) so to be honest I consider myself to be a bit of a philanthropist.

Giving all of my money away hence sacrificing my future education and career does not seem to me like the best way to maximise the amount of good I can do in this world.

There's a few issues at hand really.

Firstly, there's the fact of availability. Even if I have a million dollars and endless food, it's pointless if I am on the moon and can't give it to anyone.

Secondly, let's consider Kants rule of universality of logic:

If everyone gave things to others to balance a scale, then we are aiming at equality.
The ideal is to have an equal grounds for everyone.
Even those who have all the money to give can still receive things from the poor (ie. love).

What is the result of this..? A utopia..? Is this realistic?

~

I'm also going into a career in scientific research for my own curiousity's sake but also for the betterment of humanity,

Giving all of my money away hence sacrificing my future education and career does not seem to me like the best way to maximise the amount of good I can do in this world.

Thats true, but how is going into research about the brain and mathematics going to save anyone?

Well, the obvious implications are for the understanding and hence treatment of the more complex brain disorders, but beyond that, neural computing could achieve amazing things for mankind, I reckon. And of course there may be unexpected benefits by just generally increasing the amount of knowledge we have about they way things work; that's how science normally makes progress; blindly, but majestically.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Oh and juroara, you are knowingly letting African kids die every day. You can say it is not your responsibility, or whatever, and that is fine, but you can't deny that no matter how you put it, by your lack of action you let people die. Even if only 1% of the money you give to a charity goes to an African kid, you could have saved dozens of lives, instead of buying stuff like the computer you use. Thus: You're a Hypocrite, or you admit you value your life more than 1, or even 10, African kids.

I was merely saying our approach to end starvation needs to change. right now its an endless game of having millions dependent on us. don't you want these people to be out of poverty forever? or do you just want to keep sending them money? I don't understand why they are even still in poverty. theres plenty of money and plenty of bright people in the world to figure out a real sustainable solution. in fact, we have the man power, we have the resources, we have the money to end starvation now!! what is really in our way is politics, lack of organization and lack of leadership. Not, lack of people donating. thats just my personal frustration with the scene, because I do believe thats how quickly we can end it. I'm not saying donating doesn't work, or don't donate, but its only a bandaid for a disease.

You know, you can use the guilt trip all you want, but I remember a study showing people would donate more if they had more confidence in the program. Why don't more people give the homeless man a dollar? Because he's going to be homeless tomorrow and the next day after, and the next day after. Americans would give the man a dollar if it would end his homeless-ness. Not support his homeless cause!!!

For how long have I been hearing about starving africans? MY WHOLE LIFE. And I'm sick of it. Why hasn't it ended? Thats something I think about really

when I said not our responsibility, I was referring to the children who have parents. Why aren't their parents feeding them? Here in the US, we give money to the poor, food stamps and all. But people get angry of those lazy bastards who don't get off their arses and at least try to find a job and become dependent adults.

Why do we excuse the poor adults in another country and not hold them responsible for any of their ill decisions? A lot of those poor children still have parents that can walk and talk and think. So I am not talking about dying parents who need our help. Why haven't those 'healthier' parents made more of an effort to get themselves to a new place with more opportunities for work? For their children's sake?

There is ignorance on both ends. The poor adults aren't entirely innocent. The poor tend to be proud. "Ive lived here my whole life. My family has lived here my whole life" And they are so proud of the little dirt hole they live in they refuse to leave. Even if it means their children don't get food tonight, or even tomorrow. We need the poor adults of other countries, to take more responsibility for their actions just as we expect our poor to do here. Not just think its the responsibility of someone else to pity them and feed their children. If where you live has zero opportunities, its no one elses fault if you have made zero efforts to leave.

There are those who were born in abject poverty who are now living the good life. Do you know what they did? THEY LEFT.

I have lived in near poverty with the threat of losing the roof over my head. so I am not an ignorant rich american. I know that what I have can not be taken for granted. My shitty box of an apartment that I share with my family, is a castle.

So don't have this silly idea that all americans are just ignorant and wasting money on high tech toys just because theyre greedy. Most of my money goes to art supplies, which is how I plan to be able to support myself in the near future. And my computer is one of those supplies. I'm a need to buy basis type of person *I grew up as a money pincher*. And there is nothing wrong with living the good life. Every human being deserves to live in 'castle' and be 'rich'. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean you don't deserve the good life. The good life itself is not a crime. So I really don't like the good life guilt trips. You living the good life is not the reason why someone else is poor!

Poverty stems from ignorance, not from others having something. The good life is hope. That shows the poor all around the world, life can be better. Because there are many around the world we honestly believe, this dirt hole is as good as it gets.

But more importantly, its also how we spend money. Money is 'fake'. It is a measure of worth, a system of truth and confidence. The more positive we feel towards something, the more likely we put money into it. Thats just how it works. You feel good, you spend money. You don't feel good you don't spend money, stock market crashes. Donating would work more if it wasn't bent on negative guilt trips of hard working americans who rightfully earned the good life. We work for it. Someone gave birth to those children. Have their parents worked for it? That is a rightful question to ask, and many of these organizations would have us believe that all starving children are parentless. NOT TRUE!


PS. you can hate me or lecture me all you want about my view of those adults needing to be held responsible for their actions too, but this point of view was brought to my attention by locals in those countries trying to end this madness. they were the ones who first argued this donating business will never end poverty, but poverty can be ended and it does require adults of those nations to take responsibility and not be dependent on foreign money. I think hearing what these locals have to say is important, because our solutions have not ended it.









When it comes to helping others, I'm more of a local type of person. As the locals of those countries have brought up, it really is in the power of the people who live there. Its not up to the foreigner.

Don't forget about the people in your community who are in need. Don't forget about the people in your lives who are in need. They are your responsibility.

Originally Posted by justme

Cant everything be measured down to A or B? Even if you save some starving kid and buy a electronic, couldnt the money from the electronic buy another starving kid? I think this question signifies the ignorant bliss where if people dont see suffering they dont care.

and where does that end???

till the point you have no shoes and no car because you spent all your money on someone else??

yes, many live in ignorant bliss

but there is a fine line between bringing up ignorant bliss, and placing blame and guilt on someone because of what they have earned from their hard work. I work for what I have. And what I could not afford, my parents worked for. Nothing in my life was free or given without some sweat behind it. So no I don't feel guilty having it

now I can't speak for all americans because there are spoiled brats out there with parents who buy their future

if someone goes to the store and donates and at the same time buys an i-pod, you have no right to place blame on them for buying an i-pod. they committed no crime. the purchasing of an i-pod is not the reason why someone is starving. the blame is not yours.

nor is living in guilt that every time you reward yourself you should be ashamed that you didn't feed someone mentally healthy

step out of black and white dualism. it is not care about others/be poor or be rich and greedy. you can live the good life and care about others!

and studies show us, again, we spend when we feel good. that includes donating. so the guilt trip is actually counter productive. studies have also shown were not cyber robots. we have a trouble, in our minds, grasping a reality that exists only in a picture. it is removed from us, we don't always register it as real. instead of fighting your own head, go local. When you can see it with your own eyes, it becomes real, and not this imaginary picture

Originally Posted by juroara

don't you want these people to be out of poverty forever?

No, I don't really care. That is why I don't waste my money giving two African kids food to survive another year, I rather buy an iPod.

Didn't read the rest of your post.

Lulz.

Originally Posted by juroara

if someone goes to the store and donates and at the same time buys an i-pod, you have no right to place blame on them for buying an i-pod. they committed no crime. the purchasing of an i-pod is not the reason why someone is starving. the blame is not yours.

He could always not buy the I-pod and donate the I-pod money to charity. Actually buying the I-pod is the reason someone is starving. One of the reasons, but still... The I-pod money = food = not starving. So how can that not be the reason? I-pod buying =/= money =/= food = starving

You know, many people just standing by when somebody is bleeding to death in the middle of the street also committed no crime. The only difference is the distance. Either buy an I-pod or buy food for the hungry or either just keep walking or help the bleeding guy. If you stop to help you loose time and you know time is money.

I didn't vote, because there is no context to your question.

It could be that a starving child is sitting in the doorway of the Apple store, but you blindly ignore him to buy an iPod. Or it could be after you have worked your ass off for the month, and decide to reward yourself for doing so that rather than give that £100 to a child, you buy the iPod.

But then where are the boundaries? Where do you stop? Should I live on basic necessities so I can donate the rest of my money to charity to help a starving child. No I don't think I should do that at all. But should I donate a small amount of money from my wage every month to help, yes - it doesn't hurt.

You need to put your argument into some context, because without a real perspective on this the argument is flawed.

Me personally I give money every month from my wage to various charities, and when I buy my iPod or TV at the end of the month, should I feel guilt because I could have given more? No I don't and I don't think any of us should do to be honest...

The money for that iPod or TV could still have saved a child, irregardless.

This was a very intelligent thread actually, and I think it really lays bare the Western mindset of denial. The poll vividly shows that. If you voted for the second option, and you own any electronics whatsoever, you are a liar and you are in denial. 8 out of 14 people own no electronics? Piss off guys, seriously.

We're all guity of this kind of thing in varying degrees; definitely guilty, yes, I'm not going to deny that. Although I would say that those who buy yachts and cars and houses for ludicrous amounts are more guilty by orders of magnitude.

I think you're too concerned about the principle of the thing. Morality doesn't need principles, it jsut needs action. People try to qualify themselves as good people because they have "principles" but in the moment people are all typically just going with the flow and their principles rarely mean jack shit.

You all read the good sumeritan study, I assume, which shows how people are typically so involved in their own worlds even if they preach helping people when it comes down to it, they don't.

People hide behind principles so they don't have to be good people in reality.

So I do own electronics, and I am a terrible person because there are childrenstarving in india and whatever, but I blame the system and giving them food won't fix their society's problems. We've devaluated their currency and forced them to compete for jobs at pennies a day so our companies can save money. We don't even end up paying a whole lot less.

So in my opinion it's irrelevant whether people are buying electronics or donating money, we're al terrible people supporting a system of slavery, and we'll all probably die horrible deaths at the hands of the vengeful poor.

This is stupid.

If everyone re-allocated their resources to those who needed it, we'd be spending all our time looking for these people.

Furthermore, if literally everyone did this, we'd all just be in an equal state-like purgatory because we have to make sure no one because less or better than anyone else.

People will be sick, people will get rich. While I understand the bleeding hearts, get over it.

~

I disagree. When you "get over it" you stop caring and I just won't accept such a system.

And besides, the point of this thread isn't to get you to sell all your electronics and give the money to those in need. It's not some call for a revolution. It's an experiment about, as Xei pointed out, "denial". The fact is that in the end, if you really wanted to save a child you could, but even though you voted to save him on the pool, you'd rather buy an I-pod. And you can't really tell me that an I-pod or a TV are neccessities.

The kid, I already donate plenty of money to charities, would be glad to put in some more if someone needed it.

There's no A or B answer for me, but honestly, unless the kid was right in front of me and I had to make the decision on the spot, I'd probably buy the electronic. And I feel like shit as I'm typing my answer, but it's the hard truth for me. I'm not wealthy at all, in fact my family has been on one form of public assistance or another my whole life, so I don't have many "toys" and I'm selfish that way.
I give to charities when I can, and I volunteer time and services to them as well, but if it's a me or them, sadly I'll choose "me" probably 90% of the time.

Given the option I would save the life for sure, sadly its not as simple as that in real life.
I agree with certain people above that just continuously giving money won't solve the problems. For instance its worth remembering that much of the starvation is caused by natural phenomena like droughts. Many of the starving children live in what is basically desert, there will always be hunger problems in such hostile environments... Especially when many of these area's are governed by arseholes who think about nobody but themselves, meaning much of the money and aid doesnt actually reach the people its intended for anyway.
if I'm honest I dont really want for anything at the moment, electonic or otherwise, not because I have everything, but because I just don't want anything, advertising just doesnt affect me, but the rare occasion i actually want something I wont feel guilty buying it.

Ill leave you with something a famous monk once said:
"if everybody gave up their own happiness for somebody elses, nobody would be happy."

Originally Posted by juroara

and where does that end???

till the point you have no shoes and no car because you spent all your money on someone else??

yes, many live in ignorant bliss

but there is a fine line between bringing up ignorant bliss, and placing blame and guilt on someone because of what they have earned from their hard work. I work for what I have. And what I could not afford, my parents worked for. Nothing in my life was free or given without some sweat behind it. So no I don't feel guilty having it

now I can't speak for all americans because there are spoiled brats out there with parents who buy their future

if someone goes to the store and donates and at the same time buys an i-pod, you have no right to place blame on them for buying an i-pod. they committed no crime. the purchasing of an i-pod is not the reason why someone is starving. the blame is not yours.

nor is living in guilt that every time you reward yourself you should be ashamed that you didn't feed someone mentally healthy

step out of black and white dualism. it is not care about others/be poor or be rich and greedy. you can live the good life and care about others!

and studies show us, again, we spend when we feel good. that includes donating. so the guilt trip is actually counter productive. studies have also shown were not cyber robots. we have a trouble, in our minds, grasping a reality that exists only in a picture. it is removed from us, we don't always register it as real. instead of fighting your own head, go local. When you can see it with your own eyes, it becomes real, and not this imaginary picture

You seem to talk a lot about the starving people and what not... but I might have made this post a bit unclear. Its not about starving kids or what not, its more about the self perption of humans viewing themselves favorly as being kind and selfless. I'm not trying to blame anyone guilty bout anything. Its just interesting about the fact that unless given a blunt choice about your actions people have no other interest in mind. And its not just starving people. It could be buy this or help cure cancer, buy this or supply mechanical legs to monkeys. People like to view themselves in a positive light, despite the fact that you could of gave that money for an iPod to a monkey or whatever.

I have the solution, we'll ship a cargo ship full of trojan condoms and not only well we slow the amount of starving children but stop the aids explosion.

Originally Posted by Soldier

I have the solution, we'll ship a cargo ship full of trojan condoms and not only well we slow the amount of starving children but stop the aids explosion.

I heard that some people in Africa have gained immunity to Aids.
Cool eh? Now the good genes need to spread around the world.