Effective Altruism

[siam]

Charity is a "good" act regardless of the motivations behind it..so to give should not be discouraged...but, a more complex, wholistic system of morality may offer benefits that a piecemeal system does not.... ?...

IMO, the Christian giving to increase the number of "believers" or the Utilitarian giving to maximize the benefits that money can buy---are both founded on the premise that "numbers" matter. I think that such a moral foundation has the potential to disregard the human beings behind the numbers....?....Such a "charity" will not be able to optimize benefit for the humanity it is trying to help/save....even so, it is still better to give than not to give....

If one is to presume that Utilitarianism (maximize the "good" for the greatest number) is to be based on "reason" alone---that reasonableness/reason is to be the arbiter of right/good...then it can become inconsistent. For example, If we are to assume that it is reasonable that "money" is to be used so that its value produces the maximum benefit---then the following scenario would become good and reasonable---A man is given money for his organs---the amount will take care of 5 of his family members for many many years and it will save the life of 5 others---in all, 10 people will benefit---but he will lose his life. Our instincts may tell us this is wrong but reason alone cannot give a convincing objection---and in fact, this type of Utilitarian logic is used for justifying the sacrifices of the soldiers life when countries go to war. Soldiers are paid, and so is the organ donor of the story........

We "value" those who are "like us" more---so some Christians might value "charity" towards others who become "Christian" like them---more than those who do not---
...and not just some Christians---Madeline Albright who killed half a million children to "save" U.S. interests,---said the price was "worth it".... and today, to safeguard availability of the work/jobs that feed "our" families, we refuse the "others" who also need work/jobs to feed their families....So, one might assume it is "good" to be counter-intuitive and help those "not like us"---but if all "charity" is used up for those who are "other" what happens to the needy and homeless in our neighborhood, our communities?...Utilitarian reason would say that since it is more expensive to help such people---it does not "maximize" the good (in terms of numbers) therefore has less value?.....

Despite any hypocrisy behind an act of giving---to give is still "good" but is it the best way? Monetary charity is very necessary in emergency situations---but, if a human being is left to solely rely on charity alone---it reduces human dignity. The giver may feel-good as having contributed to the well-being of humanity---but the receiver could become a nameless, faceless, feel-good tool for the givers....To rely on an institution---no matter how well-meaning---is demeaning and reduces a persons agency. Self-reliance and sharing are better for our human nature. If we are to build an ethico-moral framework for effective Charity---we need to prioritize the considerations of the human beings at the receiving end---not those who are doing the giving. Such a system has to begin at the level of family---not start with the "stranger". This is because we are all naturally built with the mechanisms to care for those "like us"---which begins with the family. It begins with identifying who is in need, what their needs are and how to meet those needs (it may not be monetary)---such a system can be extended to the neighborhood, then to the community, then to the larger society and then to those who are further away....The key is to build "systems" of self-reliance and sharing both at the individual and group levels so that monetary Charity is only a temporary measure of help.

To give is one-way---there is a giver and a receiver---to share is two-way---all parties give and receive....human ingenuity flourishes in a paradigm of sharing...it is win-win so everyone benefits....(that is, if we give it a chance...but often we don't)
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ee-camp-closed

[Tassman]

Shuny, just so you know, when we say you're dumb it's not just an insult. You really are one of the dumbest people posting here, by a long mile.

This coming from Darth Executor, of all people, is a bit rich.

[Meh Gerbil]

This coming from Darth Executor, of all people, is a bit rich.

Here is a fun exercise for you to do at home:
1: Write a paragraph that describes what Darth Executor believes.
2: Write a paragraph that describes what Shunyadragon believes.

I'm sure when you're writing the paragraph for Darth Executor you'll have a great time misrepresenting his beliefs, sprinkling in some hyperbole, reflexively adding the whole 'racist', 'sexist', 'homophobe' triumvirate that every liberal moron who binge watches CNN while dropping acid uses as an end zone dance - yes, it will be rife with that offal from the opening line, through the long winded and incoherent body right up to the closing fin - all written with the pomposity that caused us to love you in the first place. However, if one can look past the misspellings, the utter absence of logic, and your curious habit of writing Darth Executor's name in red crayon, one will see that you're actually responding to something real, granted in your own adolescent manner.

The problem will not occur to you until you sit down to write the same analysis for Shunyadragon. You'll sit there scratching your head for an entire minute, littering the blank sheet of paper before you with a fine layer of dandruff - flecks of dried skin raining down onto the table - each like the little snowflake you've become - and then it will hit you: You have no freakin' idea what Shunyadragon believes because the man never actually takes a position on anything. I've seen him run, not walk, but run away from the teachings of his own religion. He's constantly taking the most clearly presented ideas and tangling them up into a sophistic mess.

Get real, Tassman.
Seriously.

[Sparko]

Then they can be not a good person.
The measure of goodness exists regardless of whether they are good, just like the measure of length exists regardless of how tall a person is. The existence of the measure, and how well they rank on the measure are two different things.

And what is the "measure of goodness?"

What is "good?" - is there some objective standard? Or just whatever each person thinks is "good?" How DO you measure it, Starlight?

[seer]

And what is the "measure of goodness?"

What is "good?" - is there some objective standard? Or just whatever each person thinks is "good?" How DO you measure it, Starlight?

Correct, one culture thought it was a moral good to remove the Jews from the earth. Actually, some people still do!

[Sparko]

Correct, one culture thought it was a moral good to remove the Jews from the earth. Actually, some people still do!

And some in this society think it is morally good to allow a woman to kill her unborn child. Or in Starlight's case, good to allow her to kill it after it is born.

[Starlight]

And what is the "measure of goodness?"

What is "good?" - is there some objective standard? Or just whatever each person thinks is "good?" How DO you measure it, Starlight?

A person is good to the extent they are benevolent towards others; an action is good to the extent that it is done with benevolent intentions; the consequences are good to the extent that they have effects of the kind a benevolent person would wish to see happen.

[Trout]

Meh_Gerbil is pwning this discussion. Those who disagree should delete their account before he bludgeones your worldviews further.

[seer]

A person is good to the extent they are benevolent towards others; an action is good to the extent that it is done with benevolent intentions; the consequences are good to the extent that they have effects of the kind a benevolent person would wish to see happen.

Who says? Did you just make this up?

[Starlight]

Who says? Did you just make this up?

Most atheists, it's a reasonably standard version of utilitarianism. And years of education and reading and participating in intellectual discussion groups led me to it.

Would you prefer I believed it because an• Edited by a Moderator • had dictated it to a hallucinating uneducated shepherd some time during the bronze age, the kind of way you prefer to get your own beliefs?

Moderated By: Jedidiah

This sort of language is not only blasphemous it is childish and rude

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[seer]

Most atheists, it's a reasonably standard version of utilitarianism. And years of education and reading and participating in intellectual discussion groups led me to it.

Would you prefer I believed it because an • Edited by a Moderator • had dictated it to a hallucinating uneducated shepherd some time during the bronze age, the kind of way you prefer to get your own beliefs?

But why utilitarianism? Because it subjectively appeals to you?

[Sparko]

A person is good to the extent they are benevolent towards others; an action is good to the extent that it is done with benevolent intentions; the consequences are good to the extent that they have effects of the kind a benevolent person would wish to see happen.

You just used benevolent as a synonym for good/nice. You just went in a big circle. A person is good to the extent they are good toward someone. You still haven't explained what Good is or how to measure it.

[Starlight]

You just used benevolent as a synonym for good/nice. You just went in a big circle.

No. Benevolent means to have good-will towards others, to place positive value on them in your mind. A person who values others positively is good to the extent that they do so.

[Sparko]

No. Benevolent means to have good-will towards others, to place positive value on them in your mind. A person who values others positively is good to the extent that they do so.

what kind of will did you say?

what do you mean by positive value?

If I value you at say $2000 on the auction block, that is pretty positive! I guess I am benevolent towards you, right?

No. You are speaking in circles. People who are good to others are good.

How do you measure good and what is it?

[Meh Gerbil]

I made a flow chart for those of you in the back of the class:
stock-photo-child-scribble-drawn-by-crayon-35458477.jpg