Charity

[petrushka.googol]

Is there a relation between charity and the brain's dopamine reward system ?

 

Why is it that some of the super-rich and the best philanthropists ?

[Strange]

Why is it that some of the super-rich and the best philanthropists ?

 

If they are [citation needed] then maybe it is because they have the most to give.

 

In other words, if your definition of "best" is "giving the most" then it is would not be surprising if the richest people were the "best".

 

On the other hand, in 1998 the citizens of the village of Sanankoroba in Mali raised one hundred dollars as emergency relief for their twin town of Sainte-Élisabeth in Quebec, which had been severely affected by a storm. That was small in cash terms but huge in terms of giving. In some ways, far "better" than Bill Gates' billions.

http://reliefweb.int/report/mali/minister-international-cooperation-visits-mali

Edited December 30, 2015 by Strange

[Delta1212]

Is there a relation between charity and the brain's dopamine reward system ?

 

Why is it that some of the super-rich and the best philanthropists ?

Yeah, if you define the best philanthropists as those who give the most, then people who have the most are always going to come out on top because they're capable of giving more than most people have.

 

If you define it as those who sustain the most inconvenience of hardship themselves in order to better the lot of others, the super rich are probably the worst philanthropists.

 

Is the person who feeds a village for a month with the equivalent of pocket change more of a philanthropist than the person who forgoes eating for a day in order to give what little food they have to someone who has even less?

[Ten oz]

Is there a relation between charity and the brain's dopamine reward system ?

 

Why is it that some of the super-rich and the best philanthropists ?

I do not think all charity can be lumped together. For starters we do not know how many give to charity for manipulative reasons: image, influence, Taxes, strengthening strategic relationships, and etc. I am an athiest yet have put money in the collections box of a church or two as a way of being nice to family members.

I think to answer your question we would first have to determine if true altruism exist.

[Gees]

My, but don't we just love to hate the rich people. Strange and Delta have done a good job of implying that charity is not really charity unless sacrifice is also part of the giving. There is just a little too much of that self-sacrificing Christian attitude in their posts for my taste.

 

If my belly is empty, does it really matter if a millionaire fills it or if a bum off the streets shares his meal and fills my belly? Either way, I got fed and will live another day.

 

There is the thinking that if millionaires did not hoard all of the money, then everyone would be fine -- but that is nonsense. I remember the argument where the poor man told the rich man that if the rich man would only share his money, everyone would be fine. The rich man responded that if he gave ten dollars to every poor man, by the end of the week there would be one more poor man -- himself.

 

A rich man must be able to hold onto his money, protect it from those who would steal it, and spread enough of it around to promote growth -- this is where the philanthropy comes in. Not an easy job.

 

On the other hand, in 1998 the citizens of the village of Sanankoroba in Mali raised one hundred dollars as emergency relief for their twin town of Sainte-Élisabeth in Quebec, which had been severely affected by a storm. That was small in cash terms but huge in terms of giving. In some ways, far "better" than Bill Gates' billions.

http://reliefweb.int/report/mali/minister-international-cooperation-visits-mali

 

Consider that in the above quote, the "emergency relief" was for their "twin town". (Italics and bold are mine.) Is giving to your "twin town" a lot like giving to your own town? There is a definite self identify here, so I am not so sure that this could be called altruistic, as I suspect that these people would expect their "twin town" to do the same for them if the situation were reversed.

 

Ten Oz has a point; does altruism really exist? I suspect not.

 

Gee

[Strange]

My, but don't we just love to hate the rich people. Strange and Delta have done a good job of implying that charity is not really charity unless sacrifice is also part of the giving.

 

I certainly did not intend to do that. I hate that attitude. It is often used to argue against making post-mortem organ donation an opt-out decision ("oh it's not really a donation unless its voluntary"). Well, I'm sorry, organ donation isn't about making the donor feel good, it is about saving lives.

 

I was simply pointing that the OP had not defined "best" and therefore his conclusions were ludicrous.

 

 

Ten Oz has a point; does altruism really exist? I suspect not.

 

I suspect you are wrong. But no doubt any examples of "altruism" will be claimed to be not "true altruism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[iNow]

Is there a relation between charity and the brain's dopamine reward system ?

Moving away from the philosophy and into the science, here's a decent overview. Review the references further to learn more.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-money-and-your-heart/201212/charitable-giving-guide-maximize-both-happiness-and-impact

A great deal of research in psychology has examined how giving affects people’s emotional well-being. The psychological benefits of giving include the good feeling derived when people “do the right thing” (Dawes & Thaler, 1988), the pleasurable feeling of moral satisfaction (Kahneman & Knetsch, 1992), the desire to view oneself as compassionate and kind (Schlenker, 1980; Walster, Berschield & Walster, 1973) and an emotionally positive experience known as “warm-glow” (Andreoni, 1990). In contrast, not donating when we think we should can lead to guilt and harm one’s self-image (Schlenker, 1980; Walster, Berschield & Walster, 1973).

 

What all this research has in common is the observation that helping others can affect emotional well-being. Indeed, giving to charity can lead to positive emotions such as warmth and happiness, while refusing to do so can lead to negative emotions, such as sadness and guilt. Beyond short-term emotional perks, giving has several long-term benefits as well. We like to think of ourselves as kind and giving. Thus, giving to charity doesn’t just help the causes being supported, it also helps the givers by making donors happier, improving their self-esteem, and helping them feel more connected to the rest of the world (Strahilevitz, 2011). As such, giving to charity can have positive effects on our overall well-being.

[Gees]

Strange;

 

I certainly did not intend to do that. I hate that attitude.

 

I know, which is why I felt the need to point out what it looked like.

 

I was simply pointing that the OP had not defined "best" and therefore his conclusions were ludicrous.

 

As usual, you are so busy nitpicking at the definition of a word, that you have completely missed the point of his post. Do you see anywhere in his post where he compares poor people with rich people? Do you suppose that he suspects that the "dopamine reward system" in rich people is better or more profound than it is in poor people? Or do you suspect that he threw in that stuff about dopamine just to confuse us?

 

Is there a relation between charity and the brain's dopamine reward system ?

 

Why is it that some of the super-rich and the best philanthropists ?

 

Above is Petrushka's OP, which is made up of two questions. The last time I checked, questions were possibilities, or . . . . . . questions, but not conclusions. Conclusions are usually statements. So I am having trouble identifying the "ludicrous" conclusions in his questions, but have no problem identifying the ludicrous conclusions in your statements. Maybe you could give me an assist here?

 

Strange stated: I suspect you are wrong. But no doubt any examples of "altruism" will be claimed to be not "true altruism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

Well I know you are wrong. "No true Scotsman" is about the ideal Scotsman; it is idealism. When you doubt "any examples of 'altruism' will be claimed to be not 'true altruism'", what you are doing is expecting me to argue against it because of my position set in idealism -- which would be why you brought up the "no true Scotsman" nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth. You have it exactly backward. I am not an idealist, Strange. My philosophy runs to analysis, not idealism. You should know this by now.

 

So I think that if a man was born in Scotland and has citizenship, he is a true Scotsman, unless some evidence proves otherwise. An analysis of the "self" and extended self, along with various motivations, and chemical reactions in the brain like dopamine, would have to be studied in order to see if an act was truly altruism. This is a much more complex issue than you would like to assume.

 

Gee

 

iNow;

 

I did not get to read your response before posting and found it to be on point and enlightening. But it deals primarily with charity. In keeping with the OP ideas about wealthy philanthropists, I think it would be good to add that being in a position to guide and structure a society/nation has to be very stimulating.

 

Wealthy people can be in a position to support and guide some activities while discouraging others by simply giving or withholding monies. Like kings, they can often choose the direction that their society will move into or away from, which has to be a very big power trip. Some would say that because they have the right to do this, they also have a responsibility to do it well. Is this altruistic?

 

Gee

Edited December 31, 2015 by Gees

[Ophiolite]

Above is Petrushka's OP, which is made up of two questions. The last time I checked, questions were possibilities, or . . . . . . questions, but not conclusions. Conclusions are usually statements. So I am having trouble identifying the "ludicrous" conclusions in his questions, but have no problem identifying the ludicrous conclusions in your statements. Maybe you could give me an assist here?

Certainly. Explicit in the second question in Petrushka's post is the conclusion that "some of the super-rich are the best philanthropists". It is not expressed as a possibility, but exists as a definitive statement within the question.

 

Since the super-rich have considerably more money than the average person it is not surprising that some of them would make excellent philanthropists, in an absolute sense. Therefore, asking why this rather obvious situation is so, might reasonably be categorised as ludicrous.

 

On a tertiary point, it seems to me that one cannot (yet) be a citizen of Scotland. One can be a resident of Scotland, one can be a native born Scot, one can be 'ethnically', or culturally Scottish, but one is a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not a citizen of Scotland. Citizens are those entitled to the protection of a sovereign state. Scotland is not a sovereign state.

[Strange]

As usual, you are so busy nitpicking at the definition of a word

 

Gosh. I wonder if that is because this is the "Philosophy" forum ...

 

And the OP is notoriously sloppy in his use of words (among other things). In this case (as in many others) it made one of his questions meaningless.

 

Do you see anywhere in his post where he compares poor people with rich people?

 

What do you think he was comparing rich people with? Badgers?

 

Do you suppose that he suspects that the "dopamine reward system" in rich people is better or more profound than it is in poor people?

 

I assumed they were two completely independent questions with no apparent connection between them. You have made a connection that I would never have thought of and might make for an interesting study.

 

Incidentally, I said nothing about the dopamine question because it is not something I know anything about. I'm pleased to see that someone who does know something about has provided an illuminating response.

[Delta1212]

 

I certainly did not intend to do that. I hate that attitude. It is often used to argue against making post-mortem organ donation an opt-out decision ("oh it's not really a donation unless its voluntary"). Well, I'm sorry, organ donation isn't about making the donor feel good, it is about saving lives.

 

I was simply pointing that the OP had not defined "best" and therefore his conclusions were ludicrous.

 

 

I suspect you are wrong. But no doubt any examples of "altruism" will be claimed to be not "true altruism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

And I'm in agreement with this. The implication seemed to be that the measure of best was most, but I was attempting to illustrate that there are valid alternatives.

 

I'm certainly not going to claim that being wealthy precludes someone from being a great philanthropist. I think there are many truly great philanthropists who are wealthy. On the other hand, I also don't think dollar amounts are the only measure of the "greatness" of one's philanthropic pursuits.