Why indiscriminate charity is immoral / De l'immoralité de la charité aveugle
An interesting corollary of the Law of Bitur-Camember is to agree with traditional morality against the goodthinkers who love to moan about poverty and the third-world, when it condemns indiscriminate charitythat gives to beggars or the non-deserving poor ( Read more... )
Comments 12
Reply
Notons que pour le libéral, la morale existe et est très importante -- ce qui est une raison de plus de ne pas la mettre en les mains de l'État. Les socialistes, qui promeuvent le MAL par les moyens du CRIME, sont parmi les pires ordures à la surface de la terre.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I don’t understand economics, and I don’t understand why the voluntary giving of the undeserved would be an injustice or destruction, or exactly what harm/evil it would cause to give to anyone in need. (If I literally gave equally to everyone in need, then each person would only get a uselessly tiny amount from me, and I don’t remember anyone suggesting that I do this.) Are you worried that “people will […] take the trouble of becoming poor and endure the hardness of remaining poor” on purpose just so someone might give them some money, or just that people might lie about their circumstances if their claims are not checked? And/or are you worried that the act of asking for help takes significant time and energy, and that people in need could choose to use this time and energy more usefully? (It seems to me that ( ... )
Reply
Dear Julia,
thank you for asking very important questions indeed.
First, we have to understand what "deserve" mean.
It means that the person in question did create,
does create or will create something of value;
a value according to whoever emits the judgement of "deserving",
within the limits of his or her imperfect knowledge and expectations.
Let's take an extreme example ( ... )
Reply
If you possess a talent to determine "in minutes" who best to give money to,
I encourage you to found a charity and/or a charity notation agency,
for you have the power to do tremendous good in this world.
Indeed, many people, including I, would give much more,
if they knew for sure their money would be used
for the actual greatest benefit or a good approximation thereof,
according to whichever values they care for.
As to which values one encourages - what's the difficulty in understanding ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
In particular, Gates tries to assess objective criteria of "being in need" and help those people. It doesn't give to whoever has the loudest mouth at claiming subsidies.
So, it's not the best thing ever, but not the worst, ever, and far above most people claiming for forced or voluntary subsidies.
Reply
Leave a comment