ConorJames Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 The question of the morality of charity work has never been more relevant to me than it is now. A little background first: A while ago, having finished college for the summer, I sent out dozens of job applications. To maximise my chances of employment, I applied for pretty much everything an unqualified 19-year-old could apply for, including paid fundraising work for a charity organization. Today I got a callback for an interview for tomorrow. Nobody else has called me back. So my question is this: is it moral to work for a (non-government-affiliated) charity, for pay, assuming one's primary motive is to support oneself until one finishes college and starts a career? I don't care about helping the underpriveleged and I don't care about helping the organization. I don't care how much or how little people donate (apart from the fact that the more they give, the more I earn). All I care about is the (surprisingly good) pay. But that still doesn't change the fact that I'll be in the employ of an organization dedicated to taking money from people, even if that money is willingly given. I'm not sure how to feel about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 I think it hinges on what the charity is doing. For instance, a paid job for ARI(if they exist) would be perfectly fine, but it would be wrong to support the mission of the catholic church*. *possible exception if you work at say a fundraiser for cancer research that is being run through the church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLD Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Is it moral to work for a (non-government-affiliated) charity, for pay, assuming one's primary motive is to support oneself until one finishes college and starts a career? I don't care about helping the underpriveleged and I don't care about helping the organization. I don't care how much or how little people donate (apart from the fact that the more they give, the more I earn). All I care about is the (surprisingly good) pay. But that still doesn't change the fact that I'll be in the employ of an organization dedicated to taking money from people, even if that money is willingly given. You seem to have an irrational view of charities. If people are voluntarily contributing to an organization that is not using the money for immoral purposes, then that is good and you need not avoid working for the charity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) But that still doesn't change the fact that I'll be in the employ of an organization dedicated to taking money from people, even if that money is willingly given. I'm not sure how to feel about this. Individuals give to the charity because the work that the charity does is important and meaningful to the giver. Donations are a response to the value that the giver sees in the cause being supported by the charity. There is nothing irrational or immoral about the structure of a charity. There is no reason to object to this type of work from an Objectivist basis. Now, working for a charity is certainly not a more moral profession than other free market professions, as many altruists claim; Objectivism certainly rejects that sentiment. However, the charity does provide value to the people that support it. It is an organization which does abide by the trader principle of giving value for value, and there's nothing wrong with working for one. Of course, this is given that the cause of the charity is generally good and life-promoting, rather than something irrational like giving Bibles to kids. Edited June 9, 2011 by Dante Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 But that still doesn't change the fact that I'll be in the employ of an organization dedicated to taking money from people, even if that money is willingly given. Please name for me one profitable organization that is not dedicated to taking money from people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConorJames Posted June 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 Individuals give to the charity because the work that the charity does is important and meaningful to the giver. Donations are a response to the value that the giver sees in the cause being supported by the charity. There is nothing irrational or immoral about the structure of a charity. There is no reason to object to this type of work from an Objectivist basis. Now, working for a charity is certainly not a more moral profession than other free market professions, as many altruists claim; Objectivism certainly rejects that sentiment. However, the charity does provide value to the people that support it. It is an organization which does abide by the trader principle of giving value for value, and there's nothing wrong with working for one. Of course, this is given that the cause of the charity is generally good and life-promoting, rather than something irrational like giving Bibles to kids. I see what you mean. Makes sense. And Greebo, good point. Thanks for the replies guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-1000 Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 I don't care about helping the underpriveleged and I don't care about helping the organization. I don't care how much or how little people donate (apart from the fact that the more they give, the more I earn). All I care about is the (surprisingly good) pay. I think it would be immoral of you to work for the charity if you don't support its goals. If you don't care about helping the "underprivileged" and the charity supports the underprivileged then working for them would be immoral. At the very least you are going to have to lie to get the job (which is immoral) since they are not going to hire you if you don't care about their goals and all you care about is the pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted June 9, 2011 Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 I don't care about helping the underpriveleged and I don't care about helping the organization. Would anything be wrong/altruistic about helping the underprivileged if someone is legitimately in a poor or bad condition? Or what makes you think it might be altruistic? Also, what do you mean by taking money from people if the charity is not government affiliated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotu Matua Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) When addressing the ethics of charity in Objectivist books or circles, sentences in a negative form are almost always used: "It is NOT IMMORAL" "There is NOTHING WRONG with..." But it is about time to start using positive sentences as well. Charity IS rational and IS moral in some circumstances. Charity DOES promote self interest in some circumsntances. I am connected by a global network of voluntary exchange with thousands of traders. Sometimes bad things happen to good traders, making them less able to trade with me. When bad things happen to good traders, it is likely that my life project will be in danger. Inasmuch as my life project is in danger, the rational thing to do will be to help affected traders to get back on their feet and trade again with me. If I work importing automobiles, my life project will be more endangered by devastation in Japan after an earthquake than by devastation in Haiti. So I will prefer to invest more time or money in helping Japanese. If I have family and friends in Haiti, who in turn deal with hundreds of traders there, my life project will be more endangered by devastation in Haiti than by devastation in Japan. So I will invest more time or money helping the Haitian. Helping poor children who live in your city to have access to books, nutrition or culture makes to me a lot of sense. You derive benefit from being surrounded by happier people. THe benefit, however, is not as high as the benefit you derive from being surrounded by a happy wife. Therefore, you invest much more time and money in supporting your wife than supporting the poor children of your community. Therefore, the ethics of charity is really not about its INTRINSIC content, but about its relation to your own rational projects and goals. It is not about them, it is all about you. Edited June 17, 2011 by Hotu Matua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Rarden Posted July 17, 2011 Report Share Posted July 17, 2011 (edited) Hello, I have started a donation website called Online-TipJar. I have created a tipjar for this forum: http://www.online-tipjar.com/tipjar/objectivism-online My primary focus at the moment is free software -- software that everybody uses but the creators of it are making no money on it (but they get better salary on their day jobs, because they are deemed to be better experts). I would be curious to know what you think about my site. Is Free Software Foundation (fsf.org) and GPL is consistent with Objectivist point of view ? I also embrace bicoin, since in my opinion it is the same as the gold standard. Thanks, Boris Edited July 17, 2011 by Boris Rarden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.