Charity, the root of all evil?

[Shibumi]

Lately I have been pondering something. Over a dinner discussion, I more or less got accused for being cheap and lacking in morals, as I refuse to donate money to charity, even though I would have the means.

For me it is a philosophical question more than anything else, really. I am just against most types of charity.

People have been giving money to charity for hundreds, if not thousands of years. This has yet to solve any real problems. Quite the opposite, charity is a way for the middle/upper class to buy themselves off of moral responsibility. Much like the salvation of soul letters so popular by the church before Martin Luther.

"So the world is a mess, but I do not have to care about that on a political level because I gave $100 to the Red Cross."

Pretty cheap, is it not? $100 in return for not having to care about the world at large.

But what impact will these $100 have?

Imagine if all of the millions of people who do charity stopped, and instead demanded of their politicians to sort things out. It is like the old saying, evil does not happen because there are so many evil persons in the world, evil happens because the good persons do nothing.

If one believe in the christian religion, I could bet Satan was the founder of UNICEF, Red Cross and so on.

I hope I make some sort of sense here.

PS: I do give money to projects I believe in, albeit on another scale and level.

[Furunculus]

Dambisa Moyo and her dead-aid book should be on everyones reading list:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...o-1519875.html

The EU is a particularly bad offender in that:
It uses CAP to subsidise local basic industry which prevents the third world from earning a living
It justifies its immoral behaviour by giving aid money which creates a subsistence dependency
It prevents britain from offering the favourable trade deals with former colonies that encouraged enterprise in those nations

[Fragony]

The most cynical trade there is, read 'Dead Aid' by D Moyo. It isn't really aid, it's post colonialism

[Shibumi]

Thanks guys.. I will get to it at once.

I am however talking about the more personal aid.

What would happen if UNICEF, Red Cross etc all shut down business, all with the same message - "change things politically". Then what would the good people do with their moral dilemmas?

[Fragony]

Thanks guys.. I will get to it at once.

I am however talking about the more personal aid.

What would happen if UNICEF, Red Cross etc all shut down business, all with the same message - "change things politically". Then what would the good people do with their moral dilemmas?

Skip Unicef, Red Cross is good. I adopted an African family and send them the money directly so they actually get it, hardly hurts me but it's good news for them, they can buy what they want, shoot me if I do it to feel good about myself, others hold the high ground but it's more easy to squeeze lemonade from a peace of granite if it costs them, tax included and all that

[Furunculus]

What would happen if UNICEF, Red Cross etc all shut down business, all with the same message - "change things politically". Then what would the good people do with their moral dilemmas?

what would happen?

well countries like haiti might have a chance at a future:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/d...es/4od#3153261

[rory_20_uk]

For countries to have a shot at a future, they in the first instance need to be a country. Far too many African states are as they were from colonial times as the leaders want as big a state as possible to plunder. Aid keeps them there

There are two ways forward as I see it. One expensive for us and comparatively cheap for the state, the other cheap for us and comparatively expensive for the state.

First route would be to go in, organise elections and repartition the state if required. Then assist in oversight, anti-corruption and general advice until the state is able to function independently.

The second is to basically do nothing and wait for the whole lot to implode. After the wars, starvation and so on, new boundaries will be drawn and new states will rise.

The former would require EU and US (and others) subsidies to cease to give the locals a chance to develop doing what they should be efficient at. Not going to be popular, that.

The latter would only work if the leaders in many areas were not able to sell raw materials to buyers. Practically impossible, and the resource wars would go on as they have been.

Unsurprisingly we try the "middle road" of doing something in the worst areas, but not enough to really sort anything out in a meaningful way, as to do so would cost too much.

[rory_20_uk]

I do not think that the concept of charity is bad, merely in many cases the reality. Furunculus gives examples of trade distortion disguised as charity.

Yes, using a WWF subscription to assuage one's conscience against all the bad in the world is a cop out that loads of people do, but donating to a hospice in my opinion isn't. The latter will make a significant local difference.

I also have a problem with vast amounts of my income going in the UK to such things as Social Services. It removes all link between myself and the beneficiaries. They feel no gratitude towards me as it is the State that gives them their alms, and I feel no compassion as I have been divorced from the process. Give more? What, was the last few hundred not enough this month?

Political activism is all very well and good, but most people only like things to improve abroad as long as there is no perceived cost to themselves. Else why not spend half our welfare and health budget elsewhere? It's save far more lives. People want to maintain their own delusion of being a caring citizen of the world but the vast majorities are NIMBYs. A few quid a month to a popular charity helps plaster over this disconnect.