about charity

[Itoero]

If charity solves problems short term but increases or creates new problems on a longer term..do you think that's 'good' charity? Do you support such charity? A lot (not all of course) of charity helps the recipient with their problem, but it doesn't do much to deal with the causes of that problem. It's like this saying: "Don't give a person a fish, teach him or her how to fish". 

Combating poverty involves slow processes of political, cultural and social change, with many stakeholders, significant opposition and serious issues of self-determination and coercion to be navigated. This concerns imo a very important and big ethical conundrum.  Should people spend time  to make a better world in 10 years' time if that means that people who we could have fed starve to death tomorrow...for the greater good?

The story of the boy and the starfish shows why using charity to fix individual problems can be very valuable yet the fixing of individual problems can (not always of course) increase the problem on a longer term.

Quote

Once upon a time, a man walking along a beach saw a boy picking up starfish and throwing them into the sea. He asked the boy why he was throwing starfish into the sea. The boy replied, "The tide is going out. If I don't throw them in, they'll dry up and die." The man smiled patronisingly and said, "But, there are miles of beach and thousands of starfish on every mile. You can't possibly make a difference!" The boy smiled, bent down, picked up another starfish, and threw it into the sea. "Well," he said, "I made a difference for that one."

-Infant mortality rates in villages in Ethiopia have fallen sharply which is a result of charity-funded projects.  As their populations increase resources become strained. The local youths are forced to move to the cities in search of work which increases urban poverty.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9681699/How-charity-makes-life-worse-for-Africans.html

-The main problem with food and cloths aid is that you interfere in their economy and they  become dependent on donations. Food aid in African countries competes with the crops of struggling local farmers. The same goes for cloths aid. By selling foreign cloths, you compete with people that make and sell local cloths. With those donations you weaken an already fragile economy.

In Belgium there is Oxfamwereldwinkels https://www.oxfamwereldwinkels.be/en, "Oxfam considers fair trade as a lever for structural development in the South. Of course we pay a fair price to our producers. But did you know that they receive a fair trade premium on top of that? They spend this money on projects that benefit their whole community. Oxfam Fair Trade guarantees a long-term collaboration to the cooperatives."

    =>This is the kind of charity I support.

[dimreepr]

I would say it depends on the nature of the problem and how much time is available to solve the problem.

A starving person needs a fish now and tomorrow. 

Edited August 19, 2017 by dimreepr

[Evgenia]

Some time ago i recognised the girl from orphan house we supported died. She didn't because of accident or fatal illness. She was eaten by wild dogs. 

The reason was simple. She was drunk and dogs ate her till death.

The reason why she was drunk was complicated.

After the kids reach 16, they go out this charity system. They are not little cute kids everyone likes to donate for. They are adults. And they are not ready for real life.

Should i help to others? Yes, i think so.

Should i help to girl until 16 hoping she will not be eaten by wild dogs after? 

I don't know....

 

[OldChemE]

This is a very important topic-- but I think one key aspect is that charity, per se, is not necessarily good (for reasons mentioned above).  What is important is that Charity supported should be charity that in fact does good in both the short and long term.  For example, if a person cannot support themselves, should you (1) give them money or (2) help them find a job so that they can support themselves (the old give a man a fish or teach a man to fish analogy).  Similarly, should you give money to the charity that provably helps its clients or to the one that makes a heart-rending appeal but largely lines the pockets of its founders?

[zapatos]

I support the St. Vincent DePaul Society. They (the branch I support) only help in the short term; paying an electric bill, providing food for a few days, a hotel room for a couple of days till they can get back in their house, etc. These people need help. Now. They are not asking for long term help, and to suggest there is no need for exclusively short term needs is IMO short-sighted.

Edited August 20, 2017 by zapatos

[Ten oz]

I was in the audience for a Q & A with Laurene Powell Jobs (billionaire philanthropist) and she was answering questions about various charities she supports. She kept being asked about ways to grow and expand the charities when she cautioned and made what I thought was an excellent point. She explained that it is the role of govt andnot the role of charity to structural maintain society. That it is great that people donate money to schools for new books but ultimately people shouldn't have to and that we shouldn't allow our civic duty to maintain good governance to be replaced by a reliance of philanthropy. Only by gettinng everyone to buy in and work together can big problems be solved. To that end I think some charities act as bandaids which allow important problems to go ignored or responsible parties to not be held accountable. It is a fine line.

[swansont]

On 8/19/2017 at 11:16 AM, Itoero said:

If charity solves problems short term but increases or creates new problems on a longer term..do you think that's 'good' charity?  

You've assumed this to be true, but haven't shown it to be true.

Quote

Should people spend time  to make a better world in 10 years' time if that means that people who we could have fed starve to death tomorrow...for the greater good?

Why can't you do both?

[Phi for All]

I'd love to see the US donate energy-efficient appliances, instead of building hydro-electric dams that mostly benefit US corporations. Foreign countries might start liking us again, and it might cut down on corruption. And it's the kind of right here, right now help that's often most needed. 

[Manticore]

The NGOs I work for depend on foreign donations. What we do not particularly like is when their representatives come out and tell us how to do our job. Mostly they haven't got a clue and are unwilling to listen to the people who do know.

[Itoero]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

You've assumed this to be true, but haven't shown it to be true.

Quote

Food aid solves problems momentarily(short term) but it competes with products of local farmers ...Local farmers will stop producing(on longer term) if there is no sales market or if it isn't lucrative. In many Ethiopian villages  because of improving watersupply the general  life standard was improved, increase birthrate causes indirect an increase in urban poverty.  This charity creates problems on a longer term.http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2012/8945.html

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Why can't you do both?

People need a drive to do something. If people have good access to water and food then they will not look for other ways to get more food or water.

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Itoero said:

Food aid solves problems momentarily(short term) but it competes with products of local farmers ...Local farmers will stop producing(on longer term) if there is no sales market or if it isn't lucrative.

This doesn't make sense to me. If people are starving it's because they can't afford food or because food isn't available. If it's the former, then they weren't customers in the first place, so there is no lost business. If it's the latter, then there is no business to be lost.

Quote

In many Ethiopian villages  because of improving watersupply the general  life standard was improved, increase birthrate causes indirect an increase in urban poverty.  This charity creates problems on a longer term.http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2012/8945.html

You need to make contraception available, too. That's often a religion-induced issue. But That would happen even if they improved the water supply on their own, so I don't see how you can hang that on charity.

Quote

People need a drive to do something. If people have good access to water and food then they will not look for other ways to get more food or water.

This sounds similar to the common "poor people are lazy" propaganda, along with branding them as stupid, to boot. It's bogus.

[Itoero]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

This doesn't make sense to me. If people are starving it's because they can't afford food or because food isn't available. If it's the former, then they weren't customers in the first place, so there is no lost business. If it's the latter, then there is no business to be lost

When people are starving its often because they can't afford food and because there isn't enough food. 

 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

You need to make contraception available, too. That's often a religion-induced issue. But That would happen even if they improved the water supply on their own, so I don't see how you can hang that on charity.

Charity improved water supply which decreases the amount of energy they spend to get water and it increases food production...this increases birth rate which increases urban poverty. Do you deny this causal link? I don't understand  the example about contraception.

 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

This sounds similar to the common "poor people are lazy" propaganda, along with branding them as stupid, to boot. It's bogus.

You see things black and white. People need a motivation to do things. Water and food (and air) are the physiological needs  If there is a sufficient external water/food-supply(via charity), then people will not be motivated to look for their own food supply.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

You see things black and white. People need a motivation to do things. Water and food (and air) are the physiological needs  If there is a sufficient external water/food-supply(via charity), then people will not be motivated to look for their own food supply.

In my opinion this is a terribly uninformed statement. Which successful nation in the world today didn't get something for others did not, were helped, or simply take by force what they have? More over every affluent nation is this world provides various things to their citizens for free. Is Germany full of uneducated people because their free higher education education system does motivate them to seek an education or are you literally saying your statement only applies to food and water? I think you are ignoring the scioeconomics that create strife around the world. Only in a perfect world free from structural inequality and all other external exploitations would it make sense to blame starvation on inadequate motivation of those who starve.

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Itoero said:

When people are starving its often because they can't afford food and because there isn't enough food. 

Yes, it can be both. Thanks for agreeing with me.

14 hours ago, Itoero said:

Charity improved water supply which decreases the amount of energy they spend to get water and it increases food production...this increases birth rate which increases urban poverty. Do you deny this causal link? I don't understand  the example about contraception.

But the cause of the improved water supply is irrelevant.

Contraception prevents pregnancy. People tend to have fewer children when it's available to them.

14 hours ago, Itoero said:

You see things black and white. People need a motivation to do things. Water and food (and air) are the physiological needs  If there is a sufficient external water/food-supply(via charity), then people will not be motivated to look for their own food supply.

Baloney.

If your rather simplistic view was right we would not have multi-billionaires, because they would not be motivated to earn money once they got rich. 

The thing is, there is a wide spectrum of what motivates people. What motivates you is not likely the same as what motivates me.

[DrP]

I got glared at again for sharing my views with another Air Ambulance charity worker outside of the shop the other day...  The Air Ambulance, as the workers so enthusiastically point out, is essential. OK - if it is essential, which I believe it is, it should be covered by the money we pay in taxes... 20p each on our tax should easy cover the air ambulances 1 or 3 million a year they need to sustain. A drip in the ocean for the government coffers. It would be a lot fairer to make EVERYONE pay for it as a very small percentage which we won't even notice, rather than resort to begging off of little old ladies outside of grocery stores and supermarkets.

I wont give to air ambulance out of principle  -  as an essential service it should be covered by the government imo.

[DrKrettin]

8 minutes ago, DrP said:

 OK - if it is essential, which I believe it is, it should be covered by the money we pay in taxes...

This has always been my attitude towards charities which provide a service which is essential - supporting them undermines the political will to have the state pay for a service. Having said that, there are one or two charities which I have supported (such as the NSPCC) simply because of their heart-rending advertising.

We have an interesting (and distressing) issue here in Tenerife with unwanted dogs. I don't like stating general racial characteristics, but the local people here have very little concept of treating animals well. There are plenty of hunting dogs, and when they get too old to be useful, the owners simply dump them to starve or die of thirst. Added to this is the despicable habit of people leaving the island simply to leave their pets behind on the street. This is not confined to the local inhabitants either. How can people do that? Anyway, if there is one thing the local English ex-pats are know for, (apart from serious tattoos and dodgy London East End connections) it is their keenness on animal welfare charities, and they run animal shelters of all kinds for the vast numbers of stray dogs. In a way, that is fine, but there are problems. The first is that they are almost all run by fanatics who will not contemplate putting an animal down, so that they finish up with hundreds of dogs living in seriously miserable conditions. The second is that provision for stray animals is a local authority responsibility, and they save money wherever they can. They see some foreign charity doing their work, and they have no incentive to support it financially. I will not support these dog shelters because I am sure that they are undermining the Local Authority who should be dealing with it. My refusal has often lead to very aggressive responses from rather large and very nasty people who obviously love dogs and hate people, and who just don't understand the political issues involved in what they are doing.

[EdEarl]

Charity means many things, including a veil to mask cruelty and great steps towards humane treatment of humanity. For example, free food programs for the needy are a veil that saves some people from starvation, while many more are malnourished, yet the world trashes enough food to feed them all. Many people in the US fear-hate various groups, including homeless and Mexicans, and are happy to see these people in jail, deported or dead; where is charity? We aren't the only ones, there is opposition to immigration in many places around the world.

Charity is not limited to giving a fish, it includes teaching how to fish, and equipping the fisherman. Charity is the actions that result from empathy. People who cannot fish, need the fish. People who can fish, need a different kind of help.

[DrP]

1 hour ago, DrKrettin said:

 My refusal has often lead to very aggressive responses from rather large and very nasty people who obviously love dogs and hate people, and who just don't understand the political issues involved in what they are doing.

Same here... when I suggest that it should be paid for by taxes I feel I am helping them out..  no more need for begging on the streets, stable supply of money that is guaranteed every month, acknowledged needs that all people see as necessary and all pay into...  but no  -  they just see some ass hole who doesn't want to give to charity. Morons.

The little old lady that was collecting for them a few years back looked at me with such hatred... even though I gave her cash, lol. I had a simple and easy idea to totally fulfil the financial needs of the air ambulance for decades...  send the bill to the tax payer to avoid her having to beg on the street corners for the funding...   she hated me (Cognitive dissonance maybe)..

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

I got glared at again for sharing my views with another Air Ambulance charity worker outside of the shop the other day...  The Air Ambulance, as the workers so enthusiastically point out, is essential. OK - if it is essential, which I believe it is, it should be covered by the money we pay in taxes... 20p each on our tax should easy cover the air ambulances 1 or 3 million a year they need to sustain. A drip in the ocean for the government coffers. It would be a lot fairer to make EVERYONE pay for it as a very small percentage which we won't even notice, rather than resort to begging off of little old ladies outside of grocery stores and supermarkets.

I wont give to air ambulance out of principle  -  as an essential service it should be covered by the government imo.

It strikes me as strange that you refuse to support an essential service because you don't like the funding mechanism. In other words, the only way you will support it is if you are forced to support it, and you want to be forced to support it.

Everyone has their own motivations so I'm not objecting to your stance, only saying I don't understand it.

[DrKrettin]

11 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Charity is not limited to giving a fish, it includes teaching how to fish, and equipping the fisherman. 

Give a man a fish and he eats on that day. Give him religion, and he will starve to death praying for a fish.

(sorry, OT)

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, DrP said:

Same here... when I suggest that it should be paid for by taxes I feel I am helping them out..  no more need for begging on the streets, stable supply of money that is guaranteed every month, acknowledged needs that all people see as necessary and all pay into...  but no  -  they just see some ass hole who doesn't want to give to charity. Morons.

 

Exactly how does "suggesting it should be paid for by taxes" help them out? They need money, not political viewpoints.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, DrKrettin said:

This has always been my attitude towards charities which provide a service which is essential - supporting them undermines the political will to have the state pay for a service.  

A problem here is that the top-down view often gives rise to a one-size-fits-all solution, which never works quite right, and there are gaps in what can be covered. (partly because of statutory limitations in what the government is permitted to do) Private charities can fill in gaps in that.

Then you have people that don't trust the government, or have other kinds of trust issues, so they won't seek out certain kinds of help. Again, smaller, more targeted charities can fill that in.

Going in the other direction, private charities are never going to do what the government can, owing to the infrastructure needed to implement the help. Calls for the government to get out of social services is misguided for that reason. 

[DrP]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

It strikes me as strange that you refuse to support an essential service because you don't like the funding mechanism. In other words, the only way you will support it is if you are forced to support it, and you want to be forced to support it.

I think the cost should be shared out across the board by everyone....  thus the suggestion of taxation.  I don't think it should be paid for by getting a team of OAP voluntary workers to beg for money out side of shops to take money from the normal everyday poor people who shop at the CO-OP by playing on their sense of guilt.
They guilt many old people into parting with pounds and pounds. There are over 1.5M people in our county. So - for the £3M they need each year...  that's 16p per month each person added to the council tax.  Sorted - no-one is going to miss 16p a month. Surely that is better than fleecing the gullible for tens of pounds outside of shops and sneering at them if they don't give.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Exactly how does "suggesting it should be paid for by taxes" help them out? They need money, not political viewpoints.

"They" do not need anything...  it is the air ambulance team that needs the money. "They" in their ignorance may not realise that there is a better, easier, more stable way of having the precious air ambulance funded rather than begging in the streets outside of shops.  Maybe it makes them feel better or useful or fulfilled to be doing something constructive...  personally I think it is a waste of time when it could all be covered by adding 16p onto peoples monthly bill....  which is already hundreds of pounds even in the lowest bracket.

 

Why don't they go and beg outside of the stock exchange in London? Surely they will get more money there from all of those rich brokers, no?  ;-)

 

 

[Itoero]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, it can be both. Thanks for agreeing with me.

I did not agree with you. This what you said:  "This doesn't make sense to me. If people are starving it's because they can't afford food or because food isn't available. If it's the former, then they weren't customers in the first place, so there is no lost business. If it's the latter, then there is no business to be lost "

=>You clearly make a distinction between "they can't afford it" and "food isn't available", which is a simplistic view.

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, DrP said:

I think the cost should be shared out across the board by everyone....  thus the suggestion of taxation.  I don't think it should be paid for by getting a team of OAP voluntary workers to beg for money out side of shops to take money from the normal everyday poor people who shop at the CO-OP by playing on their sense of guilt.
 

I didn't mean that I didn't understand how taxation works; I meant that I didn't understand your stance. You are willing to contribute right now, but you won't because you don't like that you and others are not being forced to.

 

Quote

"They" do not need anything...  it is the air ambulance team that needs the money.

Sorry for not being clear. By "they", I meant the actual recipients of the funds, not the people soliciting the funds or their families.

 

Quote

"They" in their ignorance may not realise that there is a better, easier, more stable way of having the precious air ambulance funded rather than begging in the streets outside of shops. 

I am skeptical that it is easier to get a new tax implemented than it is to stand outside a store and ask for donations.

 

Quote

Why don't they go and beg outside of the stock exchange in London? Surely they will get more money there from all of those rich brokers, no?  ;-)

Ah, so the issue is that they are asking you. Which frankly is how you are coming across, what with the name calling and all.