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
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
Comment