Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Lista keskustelualueista
Sinulla ei ole oikeutta kirjoittaa tälle alueelle. Tälle alueelle kirjoittamiseen vaadittu minimi jäsenyystaso on Brain-Sotilas.
Otsikko: Re: share the wealth didn't work then either
rod03801:
> I'm assuming you didn't TRULY intend to make such a broad generalization?
I sure did intend to make that generalization. What is "social conscience"? It is middle class guilt. If I give to the poor, then I am a good man. If I don't, then I am selfish, and I feel guilty about it. So I give to the poor, to prove to myself that I am good so I won't feel guilty about being bad.
Then we come to the definition of "good person". For a Christian, a good person is typically somebody who follows what they interpret the Bible to say. "Faith, hope and charity. Of all these charity being the greatest." "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Hence somebody with money, knowing that the rich cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, must make ammends to prove they deserve to be good Christians and be accepted into heaven. So they launder their conscience by giving to the poor. "If I give to the poor, i am not the kind of rich guy who is compared to a camel, but the kind of rich guy who is welcome in Heaven."
Of course, many donations are tax deductible. So a rich man can buy himself a good reputation while at the same time getting himself a nice tax break. In fact, the more money I can afford to give, the more PR I can squeeze out of it, and the more of a nice guy I look. The artifice is so good, that I can literally get rid of my bourgeois sense of guilt, and even be a good Christian (or a good Moslem or whatever religion I might like).
Ultimately, everyone wants to convince themselves that they are good. Yet nobody wants to admit the truth. The poor of the world don't need charity. What they need is social justice. They don't need petty bourgeois guilt. What they need is the fair and equal distribution of wealth. But then, it is the evil godless communists who preached that. Charity is good, because as long as there is charity there is no need for real social change or revolution.
> Is that why you give to charity? WOW. It's not why I do.
Why do you give then? I give as much as I can out of guilt. I am honest. I know very well that the money I give to charity is for the most part wasted because it will never ellicit any real social change. It merely eases my guilt so I can sleep better at night. I am an atheist, so God does not play in my sense of guilt. Mine is mere middle class guilt. But then, if people don't give out of guilt, why do they give? Are they trying to prove something to themselves, or to the world? Even if they give anonymously, what is the psychological motivation behind giving?
Otsikko: Re: share the wealth didn't work then either
Artful Dodger:
> Some out of guilt, others out of joy.
Joy in what sense? I just gave something to somebody in need, and the joy I feel comes from knowing I did something "good". In essence, the joy comes from knowing that I am a "good" person. Let's say for a moment that I decided that being selfish is better. I turn into a Mr. Scrooge and give nothing away, not even a penny. Then the joy is gone. I am not so good any more.
My sense of ethics tells me that giving is good, and being selfish is bad. Perhaps my posts sounds harsh "launder one's conscience, guilt, etc." Notice that I did not say anything about guilt being good or bad. I merely point out the "psychological" motivation behind giving.
In capitalism the rich are constantly trying to prove how good they are. So much so, that they even sold to people Adam Smith's "invisible hand". The rich are good, really. They even created a job for you. Now you can feed your family thanks to them. So what if they make a profit at your expense? You should still be grateful that the invisible hand has made them so nice to you.
Then somebody points out at the fact that the rich exploit the poor. They pursue monopolies and use their wealth to acquire political power. Suddenly the rich don't look so nice any more. Their image has to be restored and giving to charity buys the best PR around. Now Mr. Scrooge is not some mean callous exploiter, but a nice man, reformed from his selfish ways. Suddenly the eye of the needle got bigger, and Mr. Scrooge actually fits through.
My big criticism of "giving" is that it is politicized. Governments and politicians use aid as a means to leverage political and economic advantage. They will give aid to countries only when it is politically and economically convenient.
I know very well that a lot of people give out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it with kindness and joy. It is those people that remind me that humanity is more than a bunch of selfish, consuming, abusive, bellicose, murdering apes. People that give are the ones that show that humanity can strive for better. That much is true.
(piilota) Häviätkö pelit ajan loppumisen takia? Maksava asiakas voi määritellä loma-ajan, jonka aikana aikalaskuri ei juokse. (pauloaguia) (näytä kaikki vinkit)