Incentivizing Charities-Unethical?

[XxX_HellCaster_XxX]

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

i would fully explain myself but i feel no need, sorry.

And yet you felt the need to post such a completely irrelevant post where it did not belong? Interesting.

why do feel its irrelevant?

Because it is. There is no correlation between my amount of social activity and the morals of incentivizing charities.

Can't think of one way it might be relevant?

Not in any way that it would impact the discussion at hand, because despite what I'm sure you feel is an excellenct generalization, you cannot accuratley determine anything about the morals or incentivizing charities through what you presume to be my level of social activity. (Which you have no way of knowing to begin with, so it's already a baseless conclusion.)

Don't resort to fallacies

[frozen_water]

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

why do feel its irrelevant?

Because it is. There is no correlation between my amount of social activity and the morals of incentivizing charities.

Can't think of one way it might be relevant?

Not in any way that it would impact the discussion at hand, because despite what I'm sure you feel is an excellenct generalization, you cannot accuratley determine anything about the morals or incentivizing charities through what you presume to be my level of social activity. (Which you have no way of knowing to begin with, so it's already a baseless conclusion.)

Don't resort to fallacies

ANd what fallacy do you propose I used? Because I can certainly point out a glaring one of yours. Ad Hominem anyone?

[Fogojam]

frozen_water

!) I;m not saying that it doesn't increase the productivity of the charity

2) I'm not saying that just because incentivizing charities might be unethical it should stop.

You say it takes away from charities that can't provide incentives, then list tax deductions and extra credit as the incentives you're talking about, neither of which is provided by the charities themselves.

The tax deductions and extra credit for charity are there to encourage people to donate to charity. It is not unethical to encourage charity.

Any closer?

[XxX_HellCaster_XxX]

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

why do feel its irrelevant?

Because it is. There is no correlation between my amount of social activity and the morals of incentivizing charities.

Can't think of one way it might be relevant?

Not in any way that it would impact the discussion at hand, because despite what I'm sure you feel is an excellenct generalization, you cannot accuratley determine anything about the morals or incentivizing charities through what you presume to be my level of social activity. (Which you have no way of knowing to begin with, so it's already a baseless conclusion.)

Don't resort to fallacies

ANd what fallacy do you propose I used? Because I can certainly point out a glaring one of yours. Ad Hominem anyone?

please point out my fallacies

[frozen_water]

Fogojam

frozen_water

!) I;m not saying that it doesn't increase the productivity of the charity

2) I'm not saying that just because incentivizing charities might be unethical it should stop.

You say it takes away from charities that can't provide incentives, then list tax deductions and extra credit as the incentives you're talking about, neither of which is provided by the charities themselves.

The tax deductions and extra credit for charity are there to encourage people to donate to charity. It is not unethical to encourage charity.

Any closer?

I never said it was unethical to encourage charity, rather that it was unethical to offer tangible incentives. I can tell my kid that he should tak ea can to school to help the poor kids eat, nothing wrong with that.

But I do think that offering my child $5 for taking a can to school is a different situation.

And does it matter who offers the incentive? Not all charities are included under the incentive giver's guidelines, and therefore some charities inevitably get excluded.

[frozen_water]

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

Can't think of one way it might be relevant?

Not in any way that it would impact the discussion at hand, because despite what I'm sure you feel is an excellenct generalization, you cannot accuratley determine anything about the morals or incentivizing charities through what you presume to be my level of social activity. (Which you have no way of knowing to begin with, so it's already a baseless conclusion.)

Don't resort to fallacies

ANd what fallacy do you propose I used? Because I can certainly point out a glaring one of yours. Ad Hominem anyone?

please point out my fallacies

I already did.

[Fogojam]

frozen_water

I never said it was unethical to encourage charity, rather that it was unethical to offer tangible incentives. I can tell my kid that he should tak ea can to school to help the poor kids eat, nothing wrong with that.

But I do think that offering my child $5 for taking a can to school is a different situation.

And does it matter who offers the incentive? Not all charities are included under the incentive giver's guidelines, and therefore some charities inevitably get excluded.

So you'd prefer that they all be excluded?

[frozen_water]

Fogojam

frozen_water

I never said it was unethical to encourage charity, rather that it was unethical to offer tangible incentives. I can tell my kid that he should tak ea can to school to help the poor kids eat, nothing wrong with that.

But I do think that offering my child $5 for taking a can to school is a different situation.

And does it matter who offers the incentive? Not all charities are included under the incentive giver's guidelines, and therefore some charities inevitably get excluded.

So you'd prefer that they all be excluded?

I never said that.

[catspook]

frozen_water

catspook

frozen_water

catspook

The warm fuzzy feeling you get from helping is an incentive, and trust me, every charity worth its salt milks that feeling for all it can; where would you draw the line? I'm rather of the opinion that no act is entirely altruistic, so I'm not really seeing the moral problem with this practice; my question would be if this practice increases or decreases charitable giving, and that's an empirical question; do you have any data on this?

I'm talking about tanigble rewards, a warm fuzzy feeling is not what I'm reffering to, I'm talking about tax deductions from the Govn't, or Extra credit from a teacher.

And I am also of the feeling that no act is entirely altruistic but that does not mean we should incentivize things without paying caution to the risks.

But why are "tangible" rewards different? The main reason we like having so much stuff is that it makes us feel good. Basically, I need to some data; does this practice increase or decrease charitable giving? I can't decide until I have that data if it's a good idea or not.

I have no data on the amount of people who donated when offered a tangible reward as compared to those who weren't (or anything along those lines) but hypothetically would it matter if it increased charitiable giving? (For argument's sake let's say it does) Does it matter if the charity is more profitable if the action is immoral?

I don't see how the monatary gain of the charity affects the morality of the situation, as good behavior is not always shown by an increase in profit/productivity.

And tangible matters because donating to any charity could potentially lead to that "warm fuzzy feeling" and therefor would not take away form those charities that were less profitable, but offering grades for one charity and not the other causes the charity without the incentives to lose propective donators, and at the same time takes away from the act being selfless (and while the act may not have been entire selfless to begin with such incentives remove the charitible motives to a greater degree and replace it with a material motivation).

Why does the act become less "selfish" just because the reward is not tangible? Warm fuzzies or a tee-shirt (which only probably has any value because you can show off to people that you donated): what's the difference? And yes, the numbers do matter; they matter a lot. Should fewer children in third-world countries get medicine just so the relatively wealthy Americans can claim the act of donation was less selfish? Basically, it don't understand why these incentives can be considered immoral if they end up helping more people in the long run, and as I said on my first post, that's an empirical question.

The only point you are making that makes sense to me is that some charities would have advantages over others, but when it comes to tax breaks, that's kind of the point; the government foots the bill for the incentive, so any charity that fills out the paperwork should be eligible (I'm not sure that's specifically how it works, but it could and it should).

[Fogojam]

catspook

Why does the act become less "selfish" just because the reward is not tangible? Warm fuzzies or a tee-shirt (which only probably has any value because you can show off to people that you donated): what's the difference? And yes, the numbers do matter; they matter a lot. Should fewer children in third-world countries get medicine just so the relatively wealthy Americans can claim the act of donation was less selfish? Basically, it don't understand why these incentives can be considered immoral if they end up helping more people in the long run, and as I said on my first post, that's an empirical question.

The only point you are making that makes sense to me is that some charities would have advantages over others, but when it comes to tax breaks, that's kind of the point; the government foots the bill for the incentive, so any charity that fills out the paperwork should be eligible (I'm not sure that's specifically how it works, but it could and it should).

This is what I was going for in a less eloquent way. Agreed all around.

[frozen_water]

catspook

frozen_water

catspook

frozen_water

catspook

The warm fuzzy feeling you get from helping is an incentive, and trust me, every charity worth its salt milks that feeling for all it can; where would you draw the line? I'm rather of the opinion that no act is entirely altruistic, so I'm not really seeing the moral problem with this practice; my question would be if this practice increases or decreases charitable giving, and that's an empirical question; do you have any data on this?

I'm talking about tanigble rewards, a warm fuzzy feeling is not what I'm reffering to, I'm talking about tax deductions from the Govn't, or Extra credit from a teacher.

And I am also of the feeling that no act is entirely altruistic but that does not mean we should incentivize things without paying caution to the risks.

But why are "tangible" rewards different? The main reason we like having so much stuff is that it makes us feel good. Basically, I need to some data; does this practice increase or decrease charitable giving? I can't decide until I have that data if it's a good idea or not.

I have no data on the amount of people who donated when offered a tangible reward as compared to those who weren't (or anything along those lines) but hypothetically would it matter if it increased charitiable giving? (For argument's sake let's say it does) Does it matter if the charity is more profitable if the action is immoral?

I don't see how the monatary gain of the charity affects the morality of the situation, as good behavior is not always shown by an increase in profit/productivity.

And tangible matters because donating to any charity could potentially lead to that "warm fuzzy feeling" and therefor would not take away form those charities that were less profitable, but offering grades for one charity and not the other causes the charity without the incentives to lose propective donators, and at the same time takes away from the act being selfless (and while the act may not have been entire selfless to begin with such incentives remove the charitible motives to a greater degree and replace it with a material motivation).

Why does the act become less "selfish" just because the reward is not tangible? Warm fuzzies or a tee-shirt (which only probably has any value because you can show off to people that you donated): what's the difference? And yes, the numbers do matter; they matter a lot. Should fewer children in third-world countries get medicine just so the relatively wealthy Americans can claim the act of donation was less selfish? Basically, it don't understand why these incentives can be considered immoral if they end up helping more people in the long run, and as I said on my first post, that's an empirical question.

The only point you are making that makes sense to me is that some charities would have advantages over others, but when it comes to tax breaks, that's kind of the point; the government foots the bill for the incentive, so any charity that fills out the paperwork should be eligible (I'm not sure that's specifically how it works, but it could and it should).

I never said it was selfless, but none the less it makes a differences because a warm-fuzzy feeling does not move affect your position in life, or in anyway place you above another in a tangible way. If acting under the understanding that Being selfless is morally correct, then anything that encouraged someone to be materialistic would be immoral as it works against the moral principle. By showing people that they can get more from one charity than another, you teach people to look for self gain (again tangible) in what was once a largley selfless area.

ANd just because a result is overall "good" does not mean no unethical means were used to achieve it. Hypothetical: Murder is unethical. Hitler is killing millions of jews, killing him would stop a massacre, and end his tyrannical rule. I would support the murder of Hitler, although I still feel that murder is unethical. The ends justify the means, but that is not to say the means were neccesarily ethical.

[frozen_water]

Fogojam

catspook

Why does the act become less "selfish" just because the reward is not tangible? Warm fuzzies or a tee-shirt (which only probably has any value because you can show off to people that you donated): what's the difference? And yes, the numbers do matter; they matter a lot. Should fewer children in third-world countries get medicine just so the relatively wealthy Americans can claim the act of donation was less selfish? Basically, it don't understand why these incentives can be considered immoral if they end up helping more people in the long run, and as I said on my first post, that's an empirical question.

The only point you are making that makes sense to me is that some charities would have advantages over others, but when it comes to tax breaks, that's kind of the point; the government foots the bill for the incentive, so any charity that fills out the paperwork should be eligible (I'm not sure that's specifically how it works, but it could and it should).

This is what I was going for in a less eloquent way. Agreed all around.

The ends justify the means, but that is not to say the means were neccesarily ethical.

[XxX_HellCaster_XxX]

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

Can't think of one way it might be relevant?

Not in any way that it would impact the discussion at hand, because despite what I'm sure you feel is an excellenct generalization, you cannot accuratley determine anything about the morals or incentivizing charities through what you presume to be my level of social activity. (Which you have no way of knowing to begin with, so it's already a baseless conclusion.)

Don't resort to fallacies

ANd what fallacy do you propose I used? Because I can certainly point out a glaring one of yours. Ad Hominem anyone?

please point out my fallacies

I already did.

do go on

[frozen_water]

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

Don't resort to fallacies

ANd what fallacy do you propose I used? Because I can certainly point out a glaring one of yours. Ad Hominem anyone?

please point out my fallacies

I already did.

do go on

You didn't pick up on the bolded red text? Your first post reeked of Ad Hominem.

[catspook]

frozen_water

catspook

frozen_water

catspook

frozen_water

catspook

The warm fuzzy feeling you get from helping is an incentive, and trust me, every charity worth its salt milks that feeling for all it can; where would you draw the line? I'm rather of the opinion that no act is entirely altruistic, so I'm not really seeing the moral problem with this practice; my question would be if this practice increases or decreases charitable giving, and that's an empirical question; do you have any data on this?

I'm talking about tanigble rewards, a warm fuzzy feeling is not what I'm reffering to, I'm talking about tax deductions from the Govn't, or Extra credit from a teacher.

And I am also of the feeling that no act is entirely altruistic but that does not mean we should incentivize things without paying caution to the risks.

But why are "tangible" rewards different? The main reason we like having so much stuff is that it makes us feel good. Basically, I need to some data; does this practice increase or decrease charitable giving? I can't decide until I have that data if it's a good idea or not.

I have no data on the amount of people who donated when offered a tangible reward as compared to those who weren't (or anything along those lines) but hypothetically would it matter if it increased charitiable giving? (For argument's sake let's say it does) Does it matter if the charity is more profitable if the action is immoral?

I don't see how the monatary gain of the charity affects the morality of the situation, as good behavior is not always shown by an increase in profit/productivity.

And tangible matters because donating to any charity could potentially lead to that "warm fuzzy feeling" and therefor would not take away form those charities that were less profitable, but offering grades for one charity and not the other causes the charity without the incentives to lose propective donators, and at the same time takes away from the act being selfless (and while the act may not have been entire selfless to begin with such incentives remove the charitible motives to a greater degree and replace it with a material motivation).

Why does the act become less "selfish" just because the reward is not tangible? Warm fuzzies or a tee-shirt (which only probably has any value because you can show off to people that you donated): what's the difference? And yes, the numbers do matter; they matter a lot. Should fewer children in third-world countries get medicine just so the relatively wealthy Americans can claim the act of donation was less selfish? Basically, it don't understand why these incentives can be considered immoral if they end up helping more people in the long run, and as I said on my first post, that's an empirical question.

The only point you are making that makes sense to me is that some charities would have advantages over others, but when it comes to tax breaks, that's kind of the point; the government foots the bill for the incentive, so any charity that fills out the paperwork should be eligible (I'm not sure that's specifically how it works, but it could and it should).

I never said it was selfless, but none the less it makes a differences because a warm-fuzzy feeling does not move affect your position in life, or in anyway place you above another in a tangible way. If acting under the understanding that Being selfless is morally correct, then anything that encouraged someone to be materialistic would be immoral as it works against the moral principle. By showing people that they can get more from one charity than another, you teach people to look for self gain (again tangible) in what was once a largley selfless area.

ANd just because a result is overall "good" does not mean no unethical means were used to achieve it. Hypothetical: Murder is unethical. Hitler is killing millions of jews, killing him would stop a massacre, and end his tyrannical rule. I would support the murder of Hitler, although I still feel that murder is unethical. The ends justify the means, but that does not mean the ends were ethical.

I see, we are using a different definition of "ethical". I do not believe that anything has inherent morality, therefore I do not believe that "selflessness" is inherently ethical. In fact, I don't really believe in selflessness (as I said in my first post). You see, I think life is all about the warm and fuzzies (happiness); I don't see how getting a feeling of happiness from donating to charity is any different than getting a feeling of happiness from buying a yacht that you were able to afford because of a tax break you got from donating to charity. I define "ethical" as that which increases the overall quality of life for all humans (an arbitrary definition, but that's what I've come up with), so if we can increase happiness in disadvantaged people by making it attractive for rich people to help them out, then I'm all for it. That begs the question whether these incentives help or hurt, but that's what I've been saying all along.