Morality and distance

[Letum]

Perhaps a year ago this moral dilemma occurred to me:

If I was in my living room and a guest started to have a violent, natural death and the only way I could save him was by instantly paying £500 from my bank account, I would instantly do so, rather than watch him die in front of me. In fact, I would be willing to risk my life to save some one in peril before me, let alone £500!

However I know for a fact that I could save many lives by giving away £500 to a charity, but I don't.

It would be callas and greedy to watch someone die in front of me because I didn't want to spend money to save them. Is it not equally callas and greedy not to give lifesaving money to charity if I know more people will die if I do not?
After all, the only difference is I don't have to watch people die when I do not make £500 donations to charity.

Last year I bought a motorbike for enough money to buy some anonymous person a lifesaving operation that they could no afford. Does that mean I valued the bike more than the life of another human?
Obviously at the time I didn't know of anyone who needed such a operation, but I'm sure I could have found many in the world if I had looked.

Does anyone know of any writings on the issue?
This is something that troubles me deeply and I would appreciate your thoughts.

[Tchocky]

As a white, male, Northern European, I've always considered hypocrisy to be vital to my existence, somewhere up there with oxygen and sunlight. I wear leather boots, eat meat, and damned if I'm not getting the dirty oil-burning bus home tonight. Yet here I am taking a break from an essay on environmental activism :-?.

I think it boils down to sustainability. I'll go with an example... Sure, we could knock off all the electricity and oil, (someone was arguing this on the global warming thread, I forget who) but we wouldnt last out the first winter. Sustainability is about acheiving your goals, and not reducing the ability of future generations to acheive theirs.
You could give out all your cash for new livers/kidneys for dying people, but it would massively reduce your enjoyment of life, or it's expectancy.

Maybe cognitive dissonance is what this is about, I'm not sure

[waste gate]

I guess I'm confused about your issue. Are you upset because someone has died? Last I checked everyone dies. Or, because he died in front of you? There was a time when death was a very personal experience and was accepted for what it was. Part of the life cycle, we're born, we live the best life we can, we die.

Your money, no matter how much you have will not stop death. Do the best you are able with the money you have and believe that no matter how much anyone tries you cannot save everyone from themselves or death.

[Letum]

I guess I'm confused about your issue. Are you upset because someone has died? Last I checked everyone dies. Or, because he died in front of you? There was a time when death was a very personal experience and was accepted for what it was. Part of the life cycle, we're born, we live the best life we can, we die.

Your money, no matter how much you have will not stop death. Do the best you are able with the money you have and believe that no matter how much anyone tries you cannot save everyone from themselves or death.

You are missing the point....

I don't really know how I can edit my original post to make it any clearer. Try reading it very carefully and slowly.

[waste gate]

I guess I'm confused about your issue. Are you upset because someone has died? Last I checked everyone dies. Or, because he died in front of you? There was a time when death was a very personal experience and was accepted for what it was. Part of the life cycle, we're born, we live the best life we can, we die.

Your money, no matter how much you have will not stop death. Do the best you are able with the money you have and believe that no matter how much anyone tries you cannot save everyone from themselves or death.

You are missing the point....

I don't really know how I can edit my original post to make it any clearer. Try reading it very carefully and slowly.

No. I got the point and no matter how much money you give and no matter who you give it to, people are still going to die!

[Letum]

No. I got the point and no matter how much money you give and no matter who you give it to, people are still going to die!

Well of course people are still going to die, but that's not the point because you can still save a life by your actions.

If I save the man in my living room, other people will still die and so will he in when he gets old, but I still do it anyway because it is the right thing to do.

You can't let people die just because they will die anyway or because you cant save everyone. If you took that attitude then there would be no need for hospitals at all!

[waste gate]

No. I got the point and no matter how much money you give and no matter who you give it to, people are still going to die!

Well of course people are still going to die, but that's not the point because you can still save a life by your actions.

If I save the man in my living room, other people will still die and so will he in when he gets old, but I still do it anyway because it is the right thing to do.

You can't let people die just because they will die anyway or because you cant save everyone. If you took that attitude then there would be no need for hospitals at all!

That wasn't your original question. You asked if your purchase of a motorcycle was wrong because you could save a life if you did not.

My answer is no.

[Tchocky]

That wasn't your original question. You asked if your purchase of a motorcycle was wrong because you could save a life if you did not.

My answer is no.

Actually, his question was a value judgement. Similiar, but not asking if it was "wrong".

Last year I bought a motorbike for enough money to buy some anonymous person a lifesaving operation that they could no afford. Does that mean I valued the bike more than the life of another human?

[Skybird]

That you think about it and feel responsible for finding your own answer actually already gives you credit, Letum.

You can only do so much, but not more. You can look to the horizon, but not beyond. To walk the path of true altruistic and peaceful teachings like Buddha or Jesus is a very heavy burden, and most of us mortals do not have what it takes to succeed in just one life. We cannot win it all in one giant jump, usually we need to make many small steps for that reason.

I sometimes got asked, when I still taught meditation, what to do if the person asking wishes to commit itself totally to what he/she considered a spiritual path. I said, like often is said by Buddhist teachers as well: try to live a good life and be of use for others, and don'T think you have no desire to feel some joy yourself nevertheless. that is of more worth for your heavenly banking account than to meditate in a wrong way or to start a "spiritual career" by wrong ambitions.

In other words, Letum: you give me the impression that you neither live your life blindly, nor irresponsibly. Leave it well alone, your course is fine. Don't try to be more human than you are - that would cause you more trouble than good. ;) Your life and wqell-being is not of lesser worth than that of others. Will you please accept this? :up: Accepting this will give you a good balance between "Me" and "You" in general.

[SUBMAN1]

This is something that troubles me deeply and I would appreciate your thoughts.
Talk to Hillary Clinton. She talks of taking away your money for you and giving it to charity without your consent. That way, you don't have to feel bad about the motorbike because she made that decision for you! That could be our future!

-S

PS. All and all though, you cannot live your entire life for others and you cannot save the world. Give something each year maybe, and you will have done your duty.

[bradclark1]

Is SUBMAN1 and waste gate the same person?

[SUBMAN1]

Is SUBMAN1 and waste gate the same person?

No.

Here is what she said:

Addressing a Democratic fund-raiser yesterday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the "common good."


Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign.


"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.


"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

[Tchocky]

Taxation is nothing new...

[SUBMAN1]

Taxation is nothing new...

That is not the scary part, it is her mentallity where she plans to redistribute wealth. That is pure Socialism.

-S

[Skybird]

I think Letum did not ask for another stereotyped discussion of what socialism is in the poster's mind, and what a bitch Hillary Clinton is or is not. He said he has a problem concerning a moral thing, and feels personally affected by it. That requires a personal answer to him, on the issue of his. This is none of the usual theoretical debates about news headlines or politics. Do him the favour and accept that.

[SUBMAN1]

I think Letum did not ask for another stereotyped discussion of what socialism is in the poster's mind, and what a bitch Hillary Clinton is or is not. He said he has a problem concerning a moral thing, and feels personally affected by it. That requires a personal answer to him, on the issue of his. This is none of the usual theoretical debates about news headlines or politics. Do him the favour and accept that.

True, but if that is the only answer you are looking for, then it should be left in private. This is a discussion board.

[Skybird]

And this discussion is off-topic.

I usually oppose moderators being too perfect in their attempt to keep up a nice and tidy order, and i hate too tight moderating. that threads develope a life of their own is common, and often interesting and entertaining. But when somebody has not an abstract issue but a personal thing and for whatever a reason asks for public advise, replies should be kept on topic. That'S simply a question of respect for a board member, and old-fashioned politeness.

Instead this turns into another generalisation "it's not American = it then is necessarily socialistic", and election campaign balking.

Unwanted here.

Somebody asked for some kind of help. Offer what you have to help, and if you haven't anything, step aside.

[TteFAboB]

What do you know?

You would have absolute certainty that you saved the man's life. But when donating to charity, not only you may not know if you ever actually saved anybody (depends on who you're dealing with), but on the opposite, you may even cause additional death! As happened with the staff of a French "NGO" some weeks ago, as happens with other orgs involved with criminals, murderers and terrorists.

You can only be sure of your options, possibilities and consequences after you cease to exist. You can't aprehend the meaning of your life while you're living it. And you can only judge your actions and yourself for the information you had available at each moment.

You are forgetting that the bike you purchased may have paid for a life-saving surgery. Or will in the future. Call the store, call the factory, and ask if any employee has recently been through a life-saving surgery. They probably aren't prepared to receive this kind of question and probably won't have an answer. But even if you could get an answer by pestering a director/manager you still wouldn't know if their salary of the time of the purchase of your bike will pay for such a surgery 3, 5, 10 or how many years into the future, including their family and descendants. As a side note, do you know if the store/factory/the owners/whoever of your bike has a charity policy? Is it a "life-saving" field?

You may have already saved dozens of people Letum, and you simply don't know.

[ASWnut101]

I would just like to know one thing.

Has anyone here ever had a penny/pound/euro donated to them by a charity organisation (ie. Red Cross, United Fraud, ect.) for a surgery, operation, ect? I sure as hell haven't.

[SUBMAN1]

I would just like to know one thing.

Has anyone here ever had a penny/pound/euro donated to them by a charity organisation (ie. Red Cross, United Fraud, ect.) for a surgery, operation, ect? I sure as hell haven't.

I knew someone who went to the United Way after a botched operation who was broke and facing the streets, and they were denied. Why she did not sue the hospital (they accidently cut her liver during an operation) because she couldn't work anymore, nothing, I do not know, but I told her to. That is a bit of malpractice in my book.

I personally couldn't believe it, but the United Way said no. Ahh, hello? What is it there for then? Supporting illegals or something?

Anyway, I refuse to suppport them with one dime anymore.

-S

[Yahoshua]

Blindly giving to charity is more dangerous than giving to an individual.

An individual can thank you for it in person (unless you wish to remain anonymous).

A charity takes money that is never seen again and the "charities" they send to those starving kids in Africa are usually intercepted by local thugs or terrorists before it ever gets to their destination.

So if you haven't thoruoughly checked out the charity and where your dollar is going, you're better off helping individuals and you can witness the results yourself. That would be my satisfaction: Being able to walk away knowing I did some good, rather than wondering why someone isn't being helped when I donate all the time.

[Letum]

Blindly giving to charity is more dangerous than giving to an individual.

An individual can thank you for it in person (unless you wish to remain anonymous).

A charity takes money that is never seen again and the "charities" they send to those starving kids in Africa are usually intercepted by local thugs or terrorists before it ever gets to their destination.

So if you haven't thoroughly checked out the charity and where your dollar is going, you're better off helping individuals and you can witness the results yourself. That would be my satisfaction: Being able to walk away knowing I did some good, rather than wondering why someone isn't being helped when I donate all the time.

oh sure, I didn't just mean organised charities, I meant any kind of charity organised or personal.

[waste gate]

What do you know?

You would have absolute certainty that you saved the man's life. But when donating to charity, not only you may not know if you ever actually saved anybody (depends on who you're dealing with), but on the opposite, you may even cause additional death! As happened with the staff of a French "NGO" some weeks ago, as happens with other orgs involved with criminals, murderers and terrorists.

You can only be sure of your options, possibilities and consequences after you cease to exist. You can't aprehend the meaning of your life while you're living it. And you can only judge your actions and yourself for the information you had available at each moment.

You are forgetting that the bike you purchased may have paid for a life-saving surgery. Or will in the future. Call the store, call the factory, and ask if any employee has recently been through a life-saving surgery. They probably aren't prepared to receive this kind of question and probably won't have an answer. But even if you could get an answer by pestering a director/manager you still wouldn't know if their salary of the time of the purchase of your bike will pay for such a surgery 3, 5, 10 or how many years into the future, including their family and descendants. As a side note, do you know if the store/factory/the owners/whoever of your bike has a charity policy? Is it a "life-saving" field?

You may have already saved dozens of people Letum, and you simply don't know.

Wow, that is a great point TteFAboB!! Many forget that corporations are comprised of people. There is no corporation that is not employing your mother/ father, brother/sister, neighbor, the guy down the street. Its unfortunate that those apposed to free enterprise and corporations can't see that the people they hurt are their brothers, sisters, and everyone else they hold dear. We do not live in a vaccuum and every action has a reaction.

[kiwi_2005]

Charity does help. Some charity setups might take advantage of this and steal, but theres still that percentage that gets through and thats what counts this is the point,
at least then you know and will have a clear mind on the matter that your contributing to the needy? You might no be able to help the person that died in hostpital yesterday but at least you know your money is going to give someone food on their plate or a good education or not died before the age of 10 from stavation/disease.

[cobalt]

you can't be a saving grace for everybody. how would you decide who to help and who to not?

help yourself, you're here and then you're gone, make the best of your time

however, if you do have a lot of money, charity is certainly not a bad idea, but if you're pressed for cash and giving it away because of some righteous mission, not a good idea. (at least to me)

[waste gate]

Charity does help. Some charity setups might take advantage of this and steal, but theres still that percentage that gets through and thats what counts this is the point,
at least then you know and will have a clear mind on the matter that your contributing to the needy? You might no be able to help the person that died in hostpital yesterday but at least you know your money is going to give someone food on their plate or a good education or not died before the age of 10 from stavation/disease.

Well that is what it is it's all about for the secular/progressives. A clear conscience. Go on doing what is morally equivilent so long as you clear your conscience with the sort of indulgences the papacy was selling in the 15th century. You are engaging in the same behavior that is so abhorent to you.

[RedMenace]

help yourself, you're here and then you're gone, make the best of your time


Worst advice I have ever heard.

[SUBMAN1]

help yourself, you're here and then you're gone, make the best of your time

Worst advice I have ever heard.

Quoted out of context.

[waste gate]

Shamefull RedMenace. I'm embarassed for you.

[Skybird]

In principle we do gambles. I could save somebody from something -and then see that somebody commiting murder, or causing a tragic accident. If I wouldn't have helped him, maybe a future genius that cures cancer will be lost for mankind. In the end, we decide in the actual situation we are in - when the situation has come. Previously prepared rules on how to act, no matter if our personal code or the moral teaching of what we claim to be our religion, cannot prepare us completely for that case. What only makes a difference - at least to me - is if those being affected have a face , or not (are an anonymous crowd that has no real existence for me). But I believe that all is connected and linked to everything else, evcen if most of the times in ways that we cannot perceive and understand. The responsibility to decide is ours. And that for the consequences too. But deciding we must, always. I do not believe in heavenly courts judging our deeds, I do not believe in sin and spiritual guilt, but we are causing consequences, no matter if we act or not act. And we cannot escape them: to bear the consequences is ours.

In a way we create our own heavens, and hells. There is no judge. There is no messiah lifting the responsibility off our shoulders. there are no shortcuts, and no deals to get a bonus.

We must do it, so we do, and then we must live with it. That is what I would call perfect justice.

[fatty]

Letum, I know what you mean. My experience isn't as... metaphysical as the other posters, but here goes.

I am very careful and stingy about which charities I donate money to. After I read somewhere about aid money in a generic poor African country being used to buy golden toilets and a new Benz fleet for the token dictator, I became highly suspicious of charities and money. You will never get a receipt telling you what your money is spent on and who it eventually makes its way to. It may sound crazy, but I am not yet convinced that the money I give to UNICEF or whatever isn't going to be used to buy a child soldier an AK-47 someday.

What I am pleased to do instead is donate material goods. Food, bottled water, books, clothes, etc. Of course if you are really serious about saving lives then the ultimate charity to pursue is your local blood collection service. I don't mind also volunteering my own time to help out with charities. I just rarely, if ever, give money.

Doing these above things is a good experience. You may feel callas for not giving money, I feel like an ass for sitting around all day and playing video games as the world passes me by. Getting up and actually using your hands to make a difference lets you see the smiles on the faces of the people you are helping. Your contributions do not seem wasted after this.

[RedMenace]

help yourself, you're here and then you're gone, make the best of your time

Worst advice I have ever heard.
Quoted out of context.

Uh, how so? Out of context it sounds exactly the same as in context.

[SUBMAN1]

help yourself, you're here and then you're gone, make the best of your time

Worst advice I have ever heard.
Quoted out of context.
Uh, how so? Out of context it sounds exactly the same as in context.

Read again - it is part of a bigger picture. It is completely out of context, and I don't understand why you did what you did.