56667 - Something really long

[krebscout]

I suppose I can agree with most of that, but I don't think your analogy is solid all the way through, and I don't believe that charity automatically "removes the opportunity of self action." What about things like microloans? Maybe you don't consider that charity. In my eyes it is, and it enables self-action. It then has the expectation that the loan will be paid back, but I don't know that this is requisite. Literally saving someone from starvation, or the less extreme case of just helping a family get over some surprise medical expenses until they can get back on their feet...I wouldn't call that atrophy unless it's abused. The truth is that we are all beggars (Mosiah 4). We all rely completely on the Lord, just as we relied completely on our parents as children. I see human charity as an extension of Christ's...we are his hands, right? We're trying to do his work. It's not all perfect and some of it may just be cold child support, and a lot of it gets abused. I just don't think it's fair to say that charity always weakens those who receive it (which may at times be acceptable depending on what else is at stake). Besides, there's so much more about it to take into account than issues of self-action and survival. Receiving charity can change you.

It can also change the giver: great post, Mardy, and I agree with you. I don't think the benefit to the needy (in whatever form they may need) can be altogether discounted, but I especially like this:

So when we question what material wealth we accumulate, or how we use it to help others, I think we should ask the question "what kind of person is this making me?"

[Damasta]

I think we need to look at this in light of Elder Oaks' talk, "Good, Better, Best." Taking care of the poor is good. Some methods are better than others. The best ways are temporary. The decision to help the poor, once made, doesn't absolve you of putting any more thought into the matter. You must still decide what method or approach will be the best way to help the poor. Is it better to give money to an international charity organization with large overheads and a socialist agenda (I'm not thinking of any particular charity, here, so don't accuse me of slandering) or is it better to increase your fast offering? Is it better to give $20 to a homeless man whose breath reeks of alcohol and whose clothes reek of tobacco or is it better to buy him dinner? Is it better to build a flophouse or is it better to raise awareness? Is it better to volunteer in an orphanage in Africa or donate money to research on malaria? Is it better to help a large quantity of people or is it more important to support/provide quality help? Is it better to address immediate concerns (e.g. starvation and disease) or long-term concerns (e.g. education and economy)? It's not always clear what the best use of our time, money, talents, &c. is for helping the poor. But we have to try to use good judgment. And if you make it a matter of prayer, you can't go too far wrong.

[Damasta]

Haters of train stories unite!

My wife and I make fun of the story about an old couple who are crossing the train tracks. The old woman's shoe (yes, the story says shoe, not foot) gets stuck in the tracks. A train is coming. The old man stays on the tracks with her because he can't bear to be without her for even a moment. They both die.

Dumb story. The only place that you can really get stuck in the tracks is by the rails, not by the ties. So you're going to be at the edge of the track. You can lean over or lie down and just get your foot cut off. Sure that sucks, but you're alive. No need for melodramatic death scenes.

[NerdGirl]

Oh, wow, Damasta, I've never heard that particular train story before. I think that maybe the worst one yet!

[bismark]

Slightly off-topic: there seems to be a lot of antipathy towards non-LDS church based charitable organizations here. I've also seen the same at church.. Where does this come from? Fast offering and LDS philanthropies are great, but they don't and can't cover all possible areas of need. Websites such as Charity Navigator can help us find quality charitable organizations that will use our money in ways we agree with.

For example, this last Christmas my family decided to donate to Donor's Choose. This is an area (education) we strongly believe in but isn't going to be covered by just upping our fast offerings.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

Here's a train story for you:

A little girl, Belle, is jumping rope on some train tracks. "96... 96... 96..." she says, each time she jumps. A young lady, Ariel, walks up and says (a la what'serbucket from Phineas and Ferb) "Whatcha doin'?"

Belle tells Ariel that she is simply jumping on the tracks and yelling 96. Ariel requests a turn, as she reminisces about her younger days.

"Stand on the train tracks right there and start jumping. I'll be back in a little bit." Belle tells Ariel.

Ariel stands on the tracks and begins jumping tentatively. My, she thought. This brings back so many memories of my childhood.

Ariel begins jumping faster. "96... 96... I see the train! 96... 96... 96... 96... "

SPLAT.

Belle waits calmly for the train to pass, recovers her jump rope, and begins again.

"97... 97... 97..."

[vorpal blade]

My point of view is that we have an individual responsibility to help the poor and the needy, and we have no right to judge whether or not the person has brought upon himself his misery, as it says in Mosiah 4. But King Benjamin also went on to say (in Mosiah 4: 27) "And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order." To me this means not only that we shouldn’t give away all our wealth, but that it isn’t sufficient that we just have good intentions in helping the poor. It matters how we do it.

If we aren’t careful we can in fact cripple people by making them dependent on us (or the government) and cause them to lose self-reliance. I don’t mean that we should make this an excuse to not give service or of our means, but that we have a social responsibility to avoid callous indifference to the possible negative impact our charity may have on individuals and on their society.

There are those who feel that we can disregard the wisdom of the ages and experiment with a forced redistribution of wealth, and because their intentions are pure (to help the poor, needy, disadvantaged, etc.) it doesn’t even enter their heads that they may be hurting people and damaging them spiritually with their crippling charity. Needless to say, not all charity is necessarily crippling, but some of it is. Wisdom is needed to know the difference.

[Marduk]

Ours is the decision whether or not to give, and how to give. Theirs is the decision how to receive. To say that in so giving we force people into dependence is to deny them their agency. It is possible to receive with an attitude of "it's about time! They better keep this money coming!" or (to quote Abraham Simpson on getting social security checks) "I didn't earn it, I don't need it, but if they miss one payment, I'll raise hell!" (sorry for the language. Does the fact that it's a direct quote mitigate that?) Or it is possible to receive the same act of charity with an attitude of "this comes just at a time when I needed it. I know I don't deserve it, but it helps me get on my feet, and when I'm able, I will show others the kindness now afforded to me."

I don't mean to suggest that our acts of charity only affect us, and not those to whom they are shown. What I'm saying is that the identical situation can yield negative responses in both the giver and the receiver, to the detriment of both. Or, alternately, it can yield feelings of humility and gratitude in both, to the benefit of both.

At the same time, we shouldn't feel as though the situation of the truly impoverished is an atrocity. Certainly in many ways it is, but at the same time, it is just one of many trials that this earth life can bring. Perhaps we should have concern over the wealthy, who are far more likely to grow proud and forget the Lord?

Lastly, I'm not suggesting that we not consider the outward and temporal effects of our actions, merely that the utilitarian perspective ignores the inward and eternal effects of our actions. Both are critical if we are to have a complete picture of how and why we act.

[vorpal blade]

Your argument that we do not force people into dependency by unwise methods of giving them charity reminds me of the false argument made by young ladies that they should be at liberty to wear whatever provocative, revealing, or immodest clothing they want. After all, as the argument goes, no one is taking away the agency of the boys, forcing them to look, and making them think impure thoughts. The claim is made that how the boys react is not the girl’s problem, because “theirs [the boys] is the decision how to receive.” So girls should be immodest if they want because this does not deny boys their agency? It’s a common argument, but I don’t buy it.

You say “I think we can draw this to a conclusion that examines behavior in terms of how it affects us, instead of whether or not it is good for others.” Doing harmful things to others does affect you negatively internally, even if you are just recklessly indifferent. What kind of a person does it make the immodest young woman who selfishly wears revealing attire to attract interest to herself, but then claims no responsibility for any negative consequences it may have for the men she exposes herself to? Does the “feel good” feeling she has about her sense of self worth as she flaunts her body justify her actions, or do we need to look at the probable harmful effects she will have on others, and the internal harmful effects that such selfish behavior has on the young lady?

It is not the utilitarian perspective, it is the Christ-like perspective and the eternal and internal effects that I am concerned about.

[Dragon Lady]

I think we do have a responsibility for how and where we give. If you don't want to worry about it, give to the Church. You know they are giving 100% to charity and will use discretion as to how and where it is used. If, however, you want to give somewhere else (as bismark suggested) then I think we all have the responsibility to weigh and measure the pros and cons of each charity. One of the great things here is that you have a more direct say as to where your money goes. Want to give to education? Micro-loans (small loans given to people to make their lives better, then they pay you back and you can loan that money out again, or get it back in cash)? Humanitarian? Construction? Disaster Relief?

Many of those companies have some overhead so not 100% of your money goes to your cause. Though, all of it goes to helping your cause. (If the people working there didn't get paid, that company wouldn't be there to help your cause.) However, there are several that have no overhead (i.e. run by volunteers). Take the time to research different companies, what their processes is, what their overhead is, etc. You have the responsibility to make sure that your money is being used wisely.

Just as a side, there was a question asked about charitable organizations here if you want ideas.

[krebscout]

How do you completely delete a post?

[Laser Jock]

People don't realize this, but if we just discovered that we weren't the only intelligent beings in the universe, it would unify mankind and put an end to war, race, hunger--everything bad in the world. Star Trek said so.

Until we atomize their home planet. Then we'll go back to squabbling over our own world. The Ender series said so.

Awesome.

(Though the squabbling would only last for a short time, and then the despotic but brilliant older brother of the boy who destroyed the aliens would unite humanity for at least the next several thousand years.)

(I suddenly really want to re-read the books that follow Ender's Game and Ender in Exile in that series.)

[habiba]

I love this discussion! This is a HUGE part of what I'm studying!

If we aren’t careful we can in fact cripple people by making them dependent on us (or the government) and cause them to lose self-reliance. I don’t mean that we should make this an excuse to not give service or of our means, but that we have a social responsibility to avoid callous indifference to the possible negative impact our charity may have on individuals and on their society.

So true! I think it's important to remember that there are situations where immediate and direct aid is necessary and others where a development strategy is more appropriate. Emergency situations where lives are at risk require direct assistance (giving the fish). Developmental aid is a difficult field because there is so little transparency and a great deal of it is directed by people with 'good intentions' who run off of what they think will work as opposed to what actually causes long term improvements. Charity Watch is a good site to check for transparent and responsible charities, as is Charity Navigator. The American Institute of Philanthropy gives grade ratings to charities and the Better Business Bureau accredits charities. Look for those rankings/statuses to determine how wisely your money will be used. NYU professor William Easterly and NYU's Development Research Institute also run a blog called Aid Watch that acts as a sort of development watch dog, if you want to learn more about what strategies work and what don't and which organizations are more credible than others (they give out Best and Worst in Aid Oscars).

This of course applies to international charities and not local ones.

[Marduk]

Sorry, I should have been more specific; the utilitarian perspective is the one held by Singer, and permeates his example. I'm not suggesting yours is the utilitarian perspective. It is helpful to understand the morality one is arguing from when they attempt to present moral extractions, that is, stories meant to illustrate a moral platitude, so we can better understand potential strengths and flaws the extraction is designed to illustrate.

My argument appears to be being taken to an extreme; what I'm suggesting isn't that we shouldn't ever consider how efficacious our charitable actions are. What I am suggesting is that any charity is better than no charity for the truly despondent. When Christ performed miracles most were ungrateful, and continued to go about their way without changing their hearts. Even still, he continued to heal and to feed freely, without question of how those served would react. Similarly, when there is a need, and we are able to supply, we can give, without asking whether we are creating a dependency. Charity will always be better than no charity.

I worry we have an attachment to our material wealth, and use the excuse of saying those we would help would become dependent, and so withhold help. If we are going to look at it pragmatically, I think we would have to agree that by and large, most people can and should give far more than they currently are.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

How do you completely delete a post?

You can't in this forum, apparently. Or maybe you can until someone writes something after you.

[Damasta]

Slightly off-topic: there seems to be a lot of antipathy towards non-LDS church based charitable organizations here. I've also seen the same at church.. [sic] Where does this come from? Fast offering and LDS philanthropies are great, but they don't and can't cover all possible areas of need.

My only concern with them (collectively) is the previously-mentioned overheads. I might take issue with others because of their political goals (e.g. the International Planned Parenthood Federation). I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't trying to imply a blanket disapproval of all non-LDS charities. My point was just that you should choose wisely how you take care of the poor and needy.

I worry we have an attachment to our material wealth, and use the excuse of saying those we would help would become dependent, and so withhold help. If we are going to look at it pragmatically, I think we would have to agree that by and large, most people can and should give far more than they currently are.

You're right that failing to give because you fear making the recipient dependent is a lame excuse. Especially since there are plenty of ways to give money which aid the poor and cannot (as far as I can tell) create dependence (or disrupt local economies, for that matter). Like donating money to malaria research. Or teaching indigenous people better cropping methods. Or the micro-loans that krebscout mentioned.

[bismark]

Slightly off-topic: there seems to be a lot of antipathy towards non-LDS church based charitable organizations here. I've also seen the same at church.. [sic] Where does this come from? Fast offering and LDS philanthropies are great, but they don't and can't cover all possible areas of need.

My onlee concern with them there (collectively) are the previously-mentioned overheads. I might take issue with other because of their political goals (e.g. the International Planed Parenthood Federation). I cant speak, for anyone else, but, I wasn't trying to imply a blanket disapproval of all non-LDS charities. My point was just that you should choose wizely how you take care of the pour and needy.

Makes sense.

[vorpal blade]

I believe I do see your point, Marduk. A former stake president use to say that it made him feel awful when as a young missionary he taught someone the gospel and they rejected it. Then one day my former stake president came to realize that God’s approval of his missionary efforts did not depend on the actions of others. He would be blessed regardless of whether the investigator accepted the truth or not, which was up to the investigator and not the missionary. The challenge, growth, and blessing came from the spiritual effort he put into teaching, not in the baptisms.

In the same way we are commanded to share our substance with the needy. This has a tendency to humble the rich, as the scriptures say. We need to learn unselfishness, and to humbly love our fellow men. Often we learn to love others not because they do things for us, but because we do things for them. In serving others God gives us love for those we serve. We love our children more as we put their needs and wants above our own.

There are times when what is needed is some immediate relief such as food, water, shelter, blankets, medical supplies, and hygiene kits. For example, after an earthquake, flood, or other disaster. That is not the time to be asking whether these needy people should have built more earthquake proof dwellings, or should have chosen to live on higher ground. When they are in immediate danger of dying it is not the time to ask if they are getting dependent on disaster relief.

However, it needs to be acknowledged that there are times when charity given unwisely is worse than no charity at all. Christ did not do miracles where people lacked faith. Not all the sick were healed. Not everyone was raised from the dead. Sometimes the people were allowed to go hungry even though Christ had the power to feed them all. Sometimes it appears in the scriptures that Christ did not repeat the miracle of the fish and loaves of bread because he didn’t want to foster dependency.

I worry about our becoming too prosperous and becoming attached to material things and neglecting the things of the spirit. But I also worry about an attitude that we don’t care that we might be harming people by unwise giving. A bishop may know exactly what a member needs to do to solve a problem he brings to the bishop in counseling, yet the bishop will refrain from telling all he knows so that the member can learn self-reliance and to find answers to his own prayers. A bishop does not want to foster spiritual dependency in another human being.

I worry about government programs that increase the number of dependent people. They can actually increase the amount of suffering. It seems to me that many who favor these programs are focused on reducing the pain and guilt that they feel when they see others who are less fortunate, more than they are focused on truly helping the disadvantaged. So they support programs that make them feel better about themselves, and don’t concern themselves so much about how they may be making matters worse when you consider the total picture. I think Christ’s efforts were directed at helping people more than in making himself feel better about himself.

A program of charity that is supposed to help the poor, but ends up encouraging people to be poor so they can get free stuff for the rest of their life, is an unwise program. A program which establishes free food can ruin the local economy for those who would grow and sell food to others. The people can become increasingly dependent on the free food, and soon lose the knowledge and incentive to provide for themselves. This is an unwise charity than is worse than no charity. We ought not to put such temptations in the path of other people.

We can be charitable in a health care program which provides free health care to the needy, but if we are unwise this program can destroy the free market health care system, making it necessary to rely on the free health care program. As demand for free care soars, free market solutions become prohibitively expensive, private charities close up, and the free health care program has to cut back on services and quality in order to be affordable to the tax payers. Everyone suffers, and the absence of such charity would have been better than unwise charity.

In the real world we have to face the fact that things can always get worse for everyone; change is not always good. Charity given recklessly, especially when it is magnified by using the power of the state to force others to contribute to unwise charity, and when it is promoted as a right or entitlement, is sure to be a disaster sooner or later.

I would say more, but this is too long already.