Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is it irrational to give to charity?

Rate this topic


BrentRolfe

Recommended Posts

As the father of a daughter with Down's Syndrome I have often wondered what the objectivist view of handicaps is. I am perfectly happy to be 100% responsible for my daughter's welfare and we have an estate plan and an extended family that would take care of her in case of our deaths. But what if we weren't so fortunate? As I read it laissez-faire capitalism would leave Courtney to her own (very limited) devices, which would in reality mean death.

1) I accept that capitalism is the only rational economic system.

2) I accept that rationally capitalism is either all or nothing.

3) However, I see "the handicapped" (i.e those who are handicapped through no fault of their own)  as a group for whom society as a whole needs to be responsible.

Since 1) and 2) contradict 3) I am stuck. I would appreciate any help in sorting the wood from the trees.

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nothing in a capitalist system prevents giving. Others can give to

those who are handicapped, because they know or love or just want to

give. But it is not right for the government to step in and force the

giving. If the system is the way it is now, you may choose to use those

helpful programs, or not. That is a choice up to you. I wouldnt feel

too guilty for using them though. The more who use those programs, the

more the funding will cost. hopefully, it will lead to a budget

crisis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi nimble,

I understand that "nothing in capitalism prevents one fron giving to others"(paraphrased).....however, suppose I was unable to support my disabled daughter through no fault of my own.....e.g. critically injured in a car accident.....then, in an Objectivist world,  I as the father am reliant on "irrational" capitalists (i.e. capitalists who voluntarily give away their money to others) for the support of my daughter.

Most Objectivists would agree with state provision of national defence and internal police services and perhaps other organs of the judiciary. And I understand the theoretical need to limit the provision of public services beyond that else one ends up with creeping socialism. However, the provision of state aid to those who cannot help themselves through no fault of their own seems to me to be a reasonable  item to be paid for through taxation.

Obviously, this idea contradicts the concept of laissez-faire capitalism. Perhaps this is an example of (my) emotions getting in the way of my rational mind (which may put me in the Branden camp?) but I can see no way around it. As I wrote in my previous post, we are well prepared so that our daughter is provided for and that is the rational approach, I do not intend to ask the state for a penny to help our daughter. But I know of many families who are simply not able to be so well prepared.

Is "provision of services to those unable to help themselves for no fault of their own" a logical extension of rational government provided, tax supported services?

I promise not to ask Objectivists or state for any more concessions!

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p However, the provision

of state aid to those who cannot help themselves through no fault of

their own seems to me to be a reasonable  item to be paid for

through taxation./ppObviously, this idea contradicts the concept of

laissez-faire capitalism. Perhaps this is an example of (my) emotions

getting in the way of my rational mind (which may put me in the Branden

camp?) but I can see no way around it. As I wrote in my previous post,

we are well prepared so that our daughter is provided for and that

is the rational approach, I do not intend to ask the state for a penny

to help our daughter. But I know of many families who are simply

not able to be so well prepared./ppIs provision of services to

those unable to help themselves for no fault of their own a logical

extension of rational government provided, tax supported services?/p

br

br

Well, I completely understand where you are coming from. However, I

think you are letting this personal issue affect your judgement. The

question shouldnt be 'is it reasonable to ask for state aid, if people

become handicapped through no fault of their own?', but 'is it anyone

else's fault as well, which would put them in debt to the handicapped

person?' I understand the predicament that some are in, but principles

cannot be sacrificed for unusual circumstances. The best that can

happen is that in a Laissez-Faire Capitalist System people tend to make

more money, and good will among men, may be stronger. Someone you know

may have money that is willing to give. Or maybe some random

philanthropist will give. But I cannot rationalize the situation to say

that the government should provide forced giving. But as long as the

system exists that is in place now, I would recommend using it and not

accepting unwarranted guilt about it. br

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then, in an Objectivist world,  I as the father am reliant on "irrational" capitalists (i.e. capitalists who voluntarily give away their money to others) for the support of my daughter.

Why doesn't anyone see that many, if not all, of the services the government provides for people today could not be duplicated by individuals or companies in a private capacity? People would find a way to provide services to people in need like you daughter, AND not have to be irrational about it.

There's no question that network TV and radio are expensive ventures, but somehow we manage to be able to turn on TV's and radio and listen to them for "free". Who are the irrational folks running those places??

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well nimble,

I am trying to be rational about it from my own family's perspective in that I am making provision for it. However, even I do not feel morally obliged to help anyone else's handicapped child and nor do I expect anyone else to feel obliged to help mine.

The fact remains that in the event of the death of the parents and in the absence of government aid many handicapped children would be destitute. I do not like the idea that those parents go to their graves knowing that only individual (voluntary) charity stands between their child and destitution. And, I repeat, that as I understand it this voluntary support would be irrational in an Objectivist world....why give to support someone else's child?....ESPECIALLY if the burden of supporting these children isn't being shared among the whole of the society in which they live.

Understand that it is only those who are unable to help themselves AND are in this situation through no fault of there own that I would cover through imposed taxes.

1) Perhaps we would indeed be more inclined to give voluntarily if we were not forced to "give" so much through taxation? I do not know the answer to that one. I do know that in "the old days" .....before the proliferation of social service agencies my parents tell me that the community would help support the CHILDREN of e.g. "good-for-nothing" parents completely voluntarily....on the basis that the children shouldn't suffer for having poor parents.

2) If taxation were raised to protect these individuals.....do those people who have already been provided for by their parents get government benefits as well? Another conundrum.

I also do not agree with taking government benefits if they are not needed even if they are ligitimately available and even though I pay for those benefits through forced taxation......and to take "what I can get" would be a rational approach.

This topic is the one area that I have come across in which my personal views do not agree with Objectivism.

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear RationalCop,

I am not trying to be rude as I would love to beleive that your optimistic outlook on this is correct!

But,(hehe)

<<There's no question that network TV and radio are expensive ventures, but somehow we manage to be able to turn on TV's and radio and listen to them for "free". Who are the irrational folks running those places??>>

1) I have never thought of network TV as free.....the advertising uses up my most precious resource...time.

2) I don't think your example comforts me that handicapped people would be provided for voluntarily by the "Perfectly rational Objectivist do-gooders club of (name your country)".

<<Why doesn't anyone see that many, if not all, of the services the government provides for people today could not be duplicated by individuals or companies in a private capacity? People would find a way to provide services to people in need like you daughter, AND not have to be irrational about it.>>

This must be based on the benevolent universe view that I think Objectivism agrees with?

Perhaps I am just too cynical.

I assume the "could NOT be duplicated" was just a Freudian slip?

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, I repeat, that as I understand it this voluntary support would be irrational in an Objectivist world....why give to support someone else's child?

Is it irrational to place value on human life? Is it irrational to care about an innocent child who suffers through no fault of his own? Does our sense of justice demand that we automatically turn away from a child who cannot help himself? Is that what you think rationality consists of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not trying to be rude as I would love to beleive that your optimistic outlook on this is correct!

You obviously have to believe what you want to believe. I'm not trying to "comfort" you, I'm trying to tell you that others would find value in providing services for people in need of help. It may be monetary value, or it may be other value, selfish reasons to provide help to others.

That's where the altruists miss the boat. They can't seem to conceive of the idea that there are selfish reasons to help others, as you can't seem to see either. The irony is, they themselves deny that they are often "helping others" while getting value from the experience as well. They deny their selfish nature and claim altruism so that they look good or noble to others. If you have enough capitalists and if there is a service that can be provided, someone will find a way to provide that service AND find value in doing so.

That's not being optimistic, that's looking around at the world today and seeing that very concept in action.

1) I have never thought of network TV as free.....the advertising uses up my most precious resource...time.
But you do watch TV right? Do you find value in that trade off or not? And would you be willing to waste some of you time, some of your most precious resource, if it could perhaps it would help you with some of your own daughter's handicap problems but saved you money? If you could sit through some form of advertisement (just as an example of one possible model) in order to "pay" for the services you daughter needed, would you be willing to do that for your daughter? Or must you receive the assistance entirely free with no effort or expense on your part? Must you make other men means to your own ends?

I don't think your example comforts me that handicapped people would be provided for voluntarily by the "Perfectly rational Objectivist do-gooders club of (name your country)".

It's a good thing I didn't say anything about voluntarily then isn't it? I said some people would get value from providing a needed service. Again, I'm not trying to comfort you. You are responsible for your feelings, not me.

Perhaps I am just too cynical.
Maybe. I just don't think you understand the concept that people find selfish reasons and personal value from helping others.

I assume the "could NOT be duplicated" was just a Freudian slip?

Yes, you could assume that. You can assume anything you like and it needn't be at all related to reality. I will clarify that that is not what I intended to say, they COULD be duplicated by private interest. A grammatical error, not a pyschological one.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why doesn't anyone see that many, if not all, of the services the government provides for people today could not be duplicated by individuals or companies in a private capacity?

Eleanor Roosevelt was once telling a group of school children that the government was going to give each of them a toothbrush. One of the parents spoke up saying she didn't think the government should be doing that. Mrs. Roosevelt was shocked. "Don't you want children to brush their teeth?"

Ever since I heard that story I understood the mentality of people who think that, if the government doesn't do something, it won't get done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of Objectivists (and advocates of laissez faire in general) seem to have grossly deluded ideas regarding how much the average person is going to be prepared to donate. In the past few weeks, I've seen it claimed that the entire military, legal system, education/health care for poor children, and now the supporting the disabled, is all going to be adequately funded by private donations (or 'lottery tickets' and other similar schemes). Does this not seem rather unrealistic? I'm aware of arguments such as "benevolence towards others is only possible when they dont have their hands in your pocket" and I agree to an extent - I think the amount of voluntary donations under laissez faire would be significantly higher than they are today. They are not, however, likely to be high enough to provide for even half of the services which a lot of people seem to imagine they will. Have you actually stopped to consider the amount of charity that would be required to provide for all of which you are claiming?

I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting this. The mythical 'charity' fairy is not going to magically help each and every single person who deserves to be helped. Under laissez faire, a lot of people are going to suffer heavily through no fault of their own, as a result of unfortunate accidents like being born to poor parents, or contracting a disabling disease. Charity is not going to help all these people, and I would probably question the claim that it would even help the majority. This is one of the disadvantages of having a free society, and I think its something that you've got to be prepared to accept, rather than attempt to sweep under the carpet. Do I think that the 'trade off' is worth it? Absolutely, or I wouldnt consider myself a laissez farian. However, I think that admitting that it _is_ actually a trade-off is significantly more honest than deceiving yourself into thinking that "charity will save everyone!" and cause the best of both worlds. :

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that some of you are not considering one important aspect of government action -- the cost. Look at the costs of the various welfare programs. There isn't one of them that wouldn't be done more efficiently by a private source. There isn't a bigger bunch of middlemen than in a government bureaucracy. They wrap themselves in mostly needless regulations, because it is tax money being used. Their purpose isn't to be efficient, it is to get as big a budget as possible.

I can give you a for instance from personal experience. When I first came home from Vietnam (I was a Navy nurse) I ran a cardiac lab in a VA hospital. When I first took it over, I couldn't believe how badly the department had been run. I worked out how to slash my budget and do the same work. One of the first things I tried to do was to get rid of two people in the department who did absolutely nothing but play cards. Both people were handicapped and unable to do the work required, but they filled the quota. They both had been able to work at one time, but age had further incapacitated them. They weren't even able to do the filing. One had four more years before retirement, the other six. That's ten more years of forty man hours a week to be paid for, not to mention the benefits. Neither could be fired. I tried to get them moved elsewhere, but I simply could not get rid of them, and I could not afford to hire anyone else.

Not one single recommendation I made was adopted. I ran into nothing but brick walls at every turn. It didn't matter that the veterans I wanted to serve suffered as a result of these ridiculous policies, it was the policies that were untouchable. I finally left in frustration.

I've also worked at a county hospital which handled all of the city/county welfare cases. I can't begin to tell you how awful it was. The worst of it is, these days the private hospitals remind me of that hospital. The ER waiting rooms, the level of care, and the general quality of the staff are all on the same level as that understaffed and underequiped county hospital (though, generally, the nursing care was better back then). The medical profession has rapidly deteriorated in the last 10 years, more than at any time I can remember (I began working in hospitals in 1962). Most people don't have a clue to how bad it's gotten, how bad it's going to get, or in what kind of danger they are in because of it.

This is the legacy of the Clinton health care plan. In reaction to the threatened socialize medicine, the profession socialized themselves and called it business. Because of it, I have lost my doctor of 12 years, who I found only after years of searching, and have had to face a succession of brand new doctors who operate from an insurance cookbook of treatments. I don't fit into any cookbook. There isn't a program around that I fit into, except for specific research programs. I used to be able to afford to go to researchers for help, but now the cost of medical insurance is so high, and for care that is worthless to me, that I can no longer afford to seek any independent help. I can't afford to be without the insurance because of frequent hospitalizations required by secondary problems caused by my primary disease. Catch-22. And all so that I can pay into a system that will help any and everybody else but me.

There was a time when I did what I could to help others. I certainly understand the need because of my own situation. I can no longer afford to help anyone. I can't afford to help myself. This is the consequence of government programs.

It is very easy to say that the government helps people. Do you have any idea what a person has to go through to get assistence? When I first became totally disabled, I sought disability. In my naivety, I thought that was what I had been paying for all along. After months of seeing their doctors and taking their tests I found myself sitting in front of a scrawny-necked petty tyrant whose sole joy in the world was dictating who did and who did not "deserve" his stamp of approval. Even though their doctors said I could not work, he decreed that, in his words, "If you can screw the lid onto a tube of toothpaste, you can work." I was not approved. So much for government altruism. THAT little prick is your typical government middleman.

I know I could have pushed it. I could have jumped through all the hoops and finally gotten their piddling little check. I could have gone to the government clinics and sat all day long waiting to see the intern who would take my history, then the resident, and only then, if the resident deemed my illness to warrent it, would I see a specialist. But you see, the doctors have never been able to diagnose what is wrong with me. I had a hard enough time finding decent private doctors. I knew that I would never find a government doctor who would give me the time of day, much less the plain curiousity I required. My private doctor (who has since retired because he refused to give up practicing medicine) helped me. He treated my symptoms and sent me to specialists. He found researchers who were intersted in my case. He gave me vital psychological support. He treated me seriously.

To say that the government must take care of these situations is to ignore the fact that most of the real work is already done by private organizations. It isn't the government who sets up Ronald McDonald Houses. It isn't the government who raises millions doing telethons. It isn't the government who has built the best burn centers in the world. It isn't the government who does the research -- indeed, it is the government who impedes vital research. (I have personal experience in this area, as well.) You must get beyond the mindset that only the government can do certain jobs. It is a dangerous canard and an insult to the most generous country on earth.

I won't even go into other government projects, such as the utterly failed child care programs such as foster care, etc. Pick up a newpaper. The appalling evidence is all over the place.

I apologize for the rambling and any incoherence (and for the poor writing and bad grammar :) ). I usually take days to write (and rewrite) anything this long, but I just had to post after reading the above.

Janet Busch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of Objectivists (and advocates of laissez faire in general) seem to have grossly deluded ideas regarding how much the average person is going to be prepared to donate.

I, for one, have not even spoke of the concept of charity. What I have commented on refers to the idea of making the service of helping those in need as a business venture. Entrepreneurial individuals could find ways to make this profitable by funding their ventures in other ways than charging the person in need. Advertising, such as they type that runs the engines of many forms of media, is one such method of funding. When the government is willing to spread the brunt to the masses, and make it freely available to people, this KILLS any methods for private entities to make it happen without resorting to charitable contributions.

Without that government "competition", I believe you would find MANY people who would seek to make a business out of that. There is a market for that service, and they could find a way to supply it, and make it affordable. After all, look at all the people who are concerned about helping those in need NOW who do so because they value it, NOT because they are forced to. Several of you opposing the objectivist view would certainly step up to the plate considering how much value you see in it.

Forcing one man to become a means to another man's ends is immoral and unethical.

I've seen it claimed that the entire military, legal system, education/health care for poor children, and now the supporting the disabled,
The military and the legal system (judicial branch) would be parts of the government to begin with. They are legitimate government purposes according to the Objectivist viewpoint as I understand it. So you can exclude those from the private budgetary concerns.

Does this not seem rather unrealistic?

No, it seems very realistic when you consider other methods of providing services BESIDES donations.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop, oldsalt stephen_speicher and Spearmint,

I have certainly seen instances (even here in the socialist state of Canada) where "private enterprise" does a better job (as in more efficient and more cost effective) of servicing the needs of the disabled than government agencies have done. And I have little doubt that a private health care system would provide more, better and faster treatment than does our current socialised system.

However, the private providers of which I speak were all funded by one government ministry or another, not by donations and not by any form of private fund-raising, advertising etc. So the funds were provided from general tax revenues (requiring some, no doubt less efficient bureaocratic mechanism) but the allocation of those funds was to competing private providers......who we assume (and could objectively measure) were efficient in their operations.

RationalCop, I just don't see how the advertising analogy works here.....or how those providers could raise funds for their services, other than from the public purse........I am not trying to be obtuse, I am trying to understand an area of Objectivist thought that so far confuses me.

I must not be understanding this part of the philosophy correctly......I do not see how voluntarily giving money that one has earned by the use of one's own mind to another unrelated human fits in with rational self-interest.

This does not seem to me to be a trade of value-for-value.......the only value received seems to be the "feeling" of having "done good", "done the right thing", "helped those less fortunate"......none of which are Objectivist concepts as far as I can see.

Sure, the giving is in the control of the one in possesion of the money, and he /she can do whatever they want with their means. But I don't see it as being rational to give it away.

When Reardon gives money to his moocher brother to support his latest charity I find that contradictory to Reardon's values and quite irrational. He didn't even give the money to an organisation that he had some interest in. The gesture was even scorned by the rest of his parasitic relatives. Perhaps Reardon is not an Objectivist?

Perhaps only Galt and possibly Roark (maybe Cameron) are true Objectivists?

To stephen_speicher: no, I don't think it is irrational to place value on human life.....but that doesn't mean that I would donate to the comfort of a human life that I did not feel directly connected to/responsibe for if it meant that I would give up what I had legitimately earned.

"Does or sense of justice demand that we turn away".....no, I don't think that our sense of justice demands this........but I do think that our rational self-interest may demand this IF we are going to be 100% true Objectivists about it.

THAT is why I think that care for the innocently disabled may be the one other area (beside military and judicial) that should come under government control. And that is why I include in this group only those who are mentally and physically disabled through no fault of their own....i.e. a person disabled while committing a criminal act is out of luck, a drug addict is out of luck.....these were the consequences of volitional acts.

The only other rational approach (in my view) is Spearmint's......we just acknowledge the fact that in an Objectivist world there will be casualties. I think this view is rationaly defensible, though (specifically because I do value human life) this is not the course that I would chose.

Regards,

Brent

p.s. can someone tell me how to create those neat quotes in boxes....I am new here?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Does or sense of justice demand that we turn away".....no, I don't think that our sense of justice demands this........but I do think that our rational self-interest may demand this IF we are going to be 100% true Objectivists about it.

So then, I guess, according to your thinking, Ayn Rand was not a "100% true Objectivist" because she sugggested donating to the United Negro Fund as one way to combat the injustice of racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stephen,

Well I guess you got me there. I had no idea that Ms. Rand had such downright leftist tendencies! ;)

Again I am obviously missing something here and am looking for help/clarification. I agree with you that "our sense of justice does not demand that we turn away".......are you saying that our (Objectivist) sense of justice encourages us/leaves room for us to donate our earnings to "those less fortunate" even though there is no exchange of value for value?

Or am I mis-interpreting value by viewing it only as an "economic" transaction?.....i.e. one gives something concrete and gets something concrete in return.

The way I am interpreting v-f-v there is no place for giving something concrete (cash) in return for something non-concrete (a "feeling" of having done good). In my interpretation this is altruism.......what am I missing here.....besides half a brain?

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if we weren't so fortunate? As I read it laissez-faire capitalism would leave Courtney to her own (very limited) devices, which would in reality mean death.

However, I see "the handicapped" ... as a group for whom society as a whole needs to be responsible.

1st: Your problem is you have an erroneous view of Capitalism. How do you go from -the government should leave you alone- to -I can't help anyone-. How does a political system decide if you should give to charity?

2nd:Now that's the evil of altruism, forcing on others an unearned expense.

Why is "value" to you only economic? I'm sure that's not the reason you help your child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How sad that altruism has so co-opted all benevolence to their name. I've been accused of being a closet Christian because I give to certain charities. I cannot speak for other Objectivists, but I find no contradiction between the philosophy and helping another human being. First of all, why should I discount the emotional payment I get from helping someone who is suffering through no fault of their own? That is charity, yes, but no one has come in and put a gun to my head and forced me to give. The government does just that. I don't feel guilty if I don't give. It is religion and politics that try to make me suffer guilt for that. I'm under no obligation, whatever I do comes from my own values, not values that others demand I hold. I don't give to anything or anyone whose values are detrimental to me, as Hank Reardon did in his mistaken sanction. I'm not living my life for another, nor am I asking anyone else to live for me. I am neither a sacrificial lamb, nor do I benefit from other's sacrifice.

From the way you talk, I ought to feel a terrible guilt because my husband supports me completely now that I am disabled. Do you think your child ought to feel guilty because you've had to provide for her? Do you feel your obligations are duties to be borne, or do you value the child enough to do it from love? There is a huge difference in the two motives and the emotions involved. My husband does what he does because he loves me and values my life, not because he's got a duty to help me. If he acted out of duty, our life together would be miserable and it is nothing of the sort. I don't suffer from his generousity, but I have suffered from the altruist's duty-bound charity. In the altruist world, everybody suffers and what benevolence one feels toward their fellow man is debased by all the guilt.

I'm sure others can say all of this more succinctly (and coherently).

RationalCop, you've made some valid and important points, and you've given me something to think about. Thanks.

O.T. I, too, would like to know how to use the QUOTES function. I figured I couldn't use it because I'm on web.tv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WGD and oldsalt,

By jove, I think I've got it!

"Objectivism is not against emotions it is against emotionalism."

"There is nothing wrong with feeling that follows from an act of thought;....."

Peikoff in O:TPOAR.

Therefore as long as the charitable giving is rational (i.e in the context of this thread...giving to a charity supporting those who cannot support themselves through no fault of their own), then the good feeling received in return is a real value. And the transaction is value for value......and therefore ratioinal.

all this and I figured out how to put stuff in quotes too....I will email you oldsalt.

Regards,

Brent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop, I just don't see how the advertising analogy works here.....or how those providers could raise funds for their services, other than from the public purse.....

I can't help you see what you can't see. I can't show you every conceivable way people would find value in providing a service, or a manner of funding such service. Another person's value in something is not limited to what you agree with, see or understand. As Betsy has pointed out in other threads, value can be personal and still be objective, where some folks often mistake personal for subjective.

I agree with oldsalt's comments, and I paraphrase, about altruism usurping all forms of benevolence and compassion in it's name. On the issue of charity, my understanding is that Rand mostly objected to charity which went to folks who weren't WILLING to help themselves. Those that needed temporary assistance, or those that COULD NOT help themselves but perhaps would if they could, would be worthy to receive charitable assistance.

Next week I'm playing in a golf tournament. It's costing me more than it normally would because some of the proceeds are going to help a former co-worker of mine who is having renal failure and other health issues. He's a retired man who I valued as a leader once, and from whom I learned some valuable things from in the past. In your view, does this put me outside of the Objectivist philosophy? I'm sure while I'm going around the golf course that day, there's going to be sponsor signs on different holes advertising their wares, some of which I may find that I want or need. Others may notice this as well, and choose to buy from the various businesses.

we just acknowledge the fact that in an Objectivist world there will be casualties.

I think it's rational to accept that there are casualties NOW in our altruistic society. Have you ever seen a sick or diseased homeless person lying dead in some bushes or up next to a building? I have.

The debate is perhaps whether that casualty count would rise or fall, or just stay the same. We are so deeply ingrained in our altruistic society that sometimes it's difficult to imagine how things would be otherwise. Some assume the worse, others assume the better. Necessity is the mother of invention. When you take away the safety net, it's a real awakening and a great motivator. I think you might be surprised at what people are capable of (in a good way) when you take away the pacification caused by a guarantee.

VES

Edit: PS: Brent, feel free to disregard my post if it doesn't add to your understanding as it was posted after your above mentioned "revelation". ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure others can say all of this more succinctly (and coherently). 

RationalCop, you've made some valid and important points, and you've given me something to think about.  Thanks.

I think you expressed them rather well, and I enjoyed reading them. And you are welcome. It gives me pleasure knowing my thoughts gave you something to think about!!!

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By George, I think he's got it! ;)

RationalCop: Your example of a homeless person is apt. I saw the same kind of thing as a nurse. People sometimes assume that a homeless person is that way because he's a drunk, etc., but forget that some of these people are in this position because of altruism. It isn't confined to the homeless, of course.

Altruism is about giving, it is about sacrifice. This means that there be someone to sacrifice FOR. Altruists make sure that there are lots of people in need. In a way, it is self-perpetuating in this because of the damage the practice itself does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By George, I think he's got it! ;)

RationalCop: Your example of a homeless person is apt. I saw the same kind of thing as a nurse. People sometimes assume that a homeless person is that way because he's a drunk, etc., but forget that some of these people are in this position because of altruism. It isn't confined to the homeless, of course.

Altruism isn't about giving, it is about sacrifice. This means that there be someone to sacrifice FOR. Altruists make sure that there are lots of people in need. In a way, it is self-perpetuating in this because of the damage the practice itself does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...