Conspicuous charity

[Glububble]

Let's look at this from a practical standpoint:

1) Charity is a good thing. It helps society. Some people like Jeffrey Sachs think otherwise, but let's ignore them for now.

2) If charity is a good thing, then we should have more of it

3) Conspicuous charity means that the giver is looking to be applauded or rewarded with social capital

4) Attaching a stigma to those people would mean that they would be less likely to be charitable

5) Ultimately it doesn't matter if some people get to be smug as long as there is more charity

6) Thus we should instead reward conspicuous charity.

 

[Borachio]

It's a seductive idea.

But what would be the effect in practice?

What happens to those who can't afford to give as much?

What happens to those who bankrupt themselves with charitable giving?

What happens to those who give money to charity rather than pay their bills?

 

[Glububble]

It's a seductive idea.

But what would be the effect in practice?

What happens to those who can't afford to give as much?

What happens to those who bankrupt themselves with charitable giving?

What happens to those who give money to charity rather than pay their bills?

If people can't manage their finances it's their own fault. It's one thing to lose money due to corruption and quite another to lose it through your own errors.

 

[Borachio]

Well, that's a very sympathetic attitude you have there. Not.

 

[Glububble]

Well, that's a very sympathetic attitude you have there. Not.

You have to encourage people to learn how to manage their life. The best way to learn is through peer pressure. Hand-holding only works so far.

 

[aelf]

The act itself is a beneficial deed. That is most certainly not the same as a good deed.

Hell, even if it brings about good, that doesn't mean the action is praiseworthy.

 

[CivCube]

I'd say it's an issue if the act is intended to obscure the real causes of why the recipient is in need. You could donate thousands of dollars to a food pantry that dribbles little meals to impoverished people and feel good about yourself...or you could pass policy to eradicate poverty entirely.

 

[Defiant47]

I'd say it's an issue if the act is intended to obscure the real causes of why the recipient is in need. You could donate thousands of dollars to a food pantry that dribbles little meals to impoverished people and feel good about yourself...or you could pass policy to eradicate poverty entirely.

Indeed, donating to a "food pantry" may help perpetuate the cycle of poverty, which could possibly benefit you if you're a capitalist in that area. As such, the donation is actually an act of evil, if you also have evil intent in continuing to subjugate these people.

 

[Borachio]

You have to encourage people to learn how to manage their life. The best way to learn is through peer pressure. Hand-holding only works so far.

Actually, I think, in general, the best way to learn is by watching someone else do something successfully. And then trying to do the same oneself.

Also, sometimes by watching someone else fail.

I'm not sure that peer pressure has anything to do with the learning process. Except in so far as one learns some social interaction that way (and also acquires bad habits). I wouldn't have thought that maintaining a household budget qualifies as social interaction.