Reblogged:Just Say No Thanks to POS Panhandlers

[Gus Van Horn blog]

Image by Patrick Tomasso, via Unsplash, license.

Miss Manners tersely addresses a reader's question about a polite way to respond to the point-of-sale panhandling that has become so common today. Notably, the reader is being subjected to donation requests on every visit to a grocer he visits almost daily!

The reader is completely correct on etiquette grounds that this practice is rude due to the "implication that one is being miserly" and because "Some people who would like to give generously are simply not in a position to do so, and shouldn't feel embarrassed."

Miss Manners's response jibes with this, as well as the fact that the store apparently also doesn't even notice regular donations:

Does this not seem to you like an inordinate amount of time to spend worrying about something to which the sales staff, the store manager and the other customers are not paying the slightest attention?

Ouch!

On etiquette grounds, both are spot-on, but the elephant in the room neither mentions is: Why would not making a donation appear 'miserly?' And, more to the point: Why do the charities concerned feel the need to constantly hector busy people not quite on their guard -- in order to chisel a few pennies from them every time they turn around.

The short answer is: altruism -- the idea that sacrifice to others is a moral ideal, and that we owe our time and money to those who happen to have less.

It would be suicidal to follow this code consistently, but it is so widespread that almost everyone equates it with the idea of morality, treating such actually virtuous activities as production and trade as if they are outside the scope of morality.

In practice, this means that on a psychological level, most people end up trying to buy their reputations or even their feeling of virtue, guiltily making one donation or doing "good deed" at a time along the margins.

And they feel up to the task of defending their time and money only on big matters, when it would obviously be detrimental to their well-being to make a given donation or commitment. (And even then, many still feel the need to be able to explain their reasons to other people, as if their own wishes or well-being aren't a good-enough reason.)

To top it all off, since morality is a subject fraught with guilt and regarded as outside the realm of reason, most people have neither the desire to think about it, nor imagine that they can, anyway.

This is what is so morally objectionable about the practice Miss Manners discusses: Pocket change isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but giving up is held up as a moral ideal. In the moment, almost anyone who hasn't given the subject much thought will feel some combination of guilt, social pressure, and weariness (It's only eighty-three cents...), and cave in.

It is this sleazy reliance on unearned guilt that makes POS panhandling not just rude, but reprehensible.

This strikes me as the exact opposite of morality, and of the benevolence that should motivate charitable giving, and reminds me of the following quote by philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand:

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others -- a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal. A man of self-esteem can neither offer help nor accept it, on such terms.

Any charity worthy of donations should appeal to actual generosity and goodwill, and make the best positive case for itself to those most inclined and able to help it. For a charity to do the opposite -- as so many do today -- makes it suspect in my eyes.

Having made a negative case against this practice, let me also make a positive one: By refusing to donate at cash registers, you are making a small stand for your right to your own life and everything you have achieved, big or small.

The best way to do this is with a polite, guilt-free, and firm, No thanks! every time you are asked. (This shows consideration for the cashier, who may have to ask as a condition for employment.)

You are not only withholding an undeserved moral sanction and financial windfall to a group of people who are thoughtless at best, you might actually also help others who see this do the same with your example. A nice extra of that last is it potentially helps others in a truly benevolent and non-self-sacrificial way.

-- CAV

Link to Original

[Pokyt]

I disagree on both fronts.

"Miss Manners" is completely correct and whoever's writing in needs to get out of their own head a little, because that's the only place where any guilt or shame is coming from here. People choose not to donate in front of me all the time, and I could go either way depending on what I think is appropriate at the time. The only reaction I've ever gotten either way is a quick "thank you" if I say yes. If it was common to get some other reaction, then I think you'd have a point, but that simply isn't the case. No one cares whether or not you donate to charities when you're buying groceries.

Altruism does play a role in this person's letter, but that's limited to their own psyche. At least subconsciously, they feel guilty for not donating to charity, and that insecurity has caused them to feel victimized by charities that are doing nothing but existing, and store clerks who couldn't care less. Also, regarding the charities, saying that they're doing something wrong by accepting donations from grocery store checkout lines is pretty silly. It's not as if they're extorting anyone; they're trying to raise money and that's an efficient way to do it. There's nothing wrong with that.

Edited May 2 by Pokyt

[tadmjones]

Nothing wrong with a little rational altruism.

[EC]

56 minutes ago, Pokyt said:

I disagree on both fronts.

Secondly, "Miss Manners" is completely correct and whoever's writing in needs to get out of their own head a little, because that's the only place where any guilt or shame is coming from here. People choose not to donate in front of me all the time, and I could go either way depending on what I think is appropriate at the time. The only reaction I've ever gotten either way is a quick "thank you" if I say yes. If it was common to get some other reaction, then I think you'd have a point, but that simply isn't the case. No one cares whether or not you donate to charities when you're buying groceries.

Altruism does play a role in this person's letter, but that's limited to their own psyche. At least subconsciously, they feel guilty for not donating to charity, and that insecurity has caused them to feel victimized by charities that are doing nothing but existing, and store clerks who couldn't care less. Also, regarding the charities, saying that they're doing something wrong by accepting donations from grocery store checkout lines is pretty silly. It's not as if they're extorting anyone; they're trying to raise money and that's an efficient way to do it. There's nothing wrong with that.

Ever accidentally hit yes to one of those popups when paying for something at a gas station with a card and essentially have had an extra dollar stolen from you with essentially no way to get it back? Private charity is fine in the appropriate circumstances and a person can afford it with no sacrifice on their purpose and it is for a purpose, person, or group that is a personal value to themselves, but it's definitely not good/moral when done by an "oops".

[EC]

33 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Nothing wrong with a little rational altruism.

No such thing, as the two words are a contradiction in terms.

[necrovore]

22 minutes ago, EC said:

No such thing, as the two words are a contradiction in terms.

I think he was being sarcastic.

"Rational altruism" is a movement that Sam Bankman-Fraud Fried was involved with.

[tadmjones]

Well the front for money laundering SBF ran was a purported 'movement' called that, too. In non O'ist terms rational altruism would be synonymous/analogous to benevolence. 

The 'rational' qualifies the 'evil', metaphorically or course.

[Pokyt]

2 hours ago, EC said:

Ever accidentally hit yes to one of those popups when paying for something at a gas station with a card and essentially have had an extra dollar stolen from you with essentially no way to get it back? Private charity is fine in the appropriate circumstances and a person can afford it with no sacrifice on their purpose and it is for a purpose, person, or group that is a personal value to themselves, but it's definitely not good/moral when done by an "oops".

I haven't, but it's reasonable to say that I might sometime in the future. It's also reasonable to say that I might accidentally press a higher tip amount than I would mean to on the touch-screen register while I'm buying coffee. Does that make Starbucks morally culpable for accepting tips? Absolutely not. Be more careful next time so you don't agree to pay for things that you don't want to pay for.

If you feel pressured to tip more, or donate to charity because of the altruistic morality of wider society, acting in accordance with that standard would still be entirely your fault. You and only you would be the immoral actor.

 

 

[EC]

2 hours ago, Pokyt said:

I haven't, but it's reasonable to say that I might sometime in the future. It's also reasonable to say that I might accidentally press a higher tip amount than I would mean to on the touch-screen register while I'm buying coffee. Does that make Starbucks morally culpable for accepting tips? Absolutely not. Be more careful next time so you don't agree to pay for things that you don't want to pay for.

If you feel pressured to tip more, or donate to charity because of the altruistic morality of wider society, acting in accordance with that standard would still be entirely your fault. You and only you would be the immoral actor.

 

 

I agree,  not that I would ever feel "pressure" myself.  Social pressure, especially from evil philosophy such as altruism would only be "felt" by secondhanders.

[EC]

4 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Well the front for money laundering SBF ran was a purported 'movement' called that, too. In non O'ist terms rational altruism would be synonymous/analogous to benevolence. 

The 'rational' qualifies the 'evil', metaphorically or course.

Self-sacrifice is the antesis of rational/good always. Remember in any compromise between food and poison it's only good that is killed. Also, even though I’m an Objectivist, I am one because the ideas are true in reality which is what should be pu front and center, or else an individual just comes across as a proponent of some philosophy, instead of the facts of reality as such where facts and open to random opinions of others instead.