Incentivizing Charities-Unethical?

[frozen_water]

catspook

frozen_water

catspook

frozen_water

catspook

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.

Then it would appear that our disagreements come from technecalities based on how we define ethics rather than a disagreement on the actual concepts themselves.

I find no qualms with your ideas, and my feeling of the incentives being unethical stem from my interpretation of ethics being a more or less set ideal rather than based on over all gain or loss created by actions.

[XxX_HellCaster_XxX]

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.

your whole argument against me is ad hominem

[frozen_water]

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

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.

your whole argument against me is ad hominem

How so? (And what argument do you speak of?)

[catspook]

frozen_water

catspook

frozen_water

catspook

frozen_water

catspook

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.

Then it would appear that our disagreements come from technecalities based on how we define ethics rather than a disagreement on the actual concepts themselves.

I find no qualms with your ideas, and my feeling of the incentives being unethical stem from my interpretation of ethics being a more or less set ideal rather than based on over all gain or loss created by actions.

Then we have reached an understanding - according to your definition, charity incentives are unethical, and according to mine they may or may not be 3nodding

[frozen_water]

catspook

frozen_water

catspook

frozen_water

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).

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.

Then it would appear that our disagreements come from technecalities based on how we define ethics rather than a disagreement on the actual concepts themselves.

I find no qualms with your ideas, and my feeling of the incentives being unethical stem from my interpretation of ethics being a more or less set ideal rather than based on over all gain or loss created by actions.

Then we have reached an understanding - according to your definition, charity incentives are unethical, and according to mine they may or may not be 3nodding

Agreed.

[XxX_HellCaster_XxX]

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

I already did.

do go on

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

your whole argument against me is ad hominem

How so? (And what argument do you speak of?)

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

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.)

if you claim my words as an Ad Hominem, then i feel you are guilty of it too.

[frozen_water]

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

do go on

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

your whole argument against me is ad hominem

How so? (And what argument do you speak of?)

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.)

if you claim my words as an Ad Hominem, then i feel you are guilty of it too.

Do you know what Ad Hominem means? I have a strong feeling you don't.

Please point out how I used that logical fallacy, and "you said I used it" isn't a reason.

[frozen_water]

Question: Does anyone feel upset/comforted by the idea that the government offers such incentives?

[XxX_HellCaster_XxX]

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

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

your whole argument against me is ad hominem

How so? (And what argument do you speak of?)

frozen_water

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

frozen_water

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.)

if you claim my words as an Ad Hominem, then i feel you are guilty of it too.

Do you know what Ad Hominem means? I have a strong feeling you don't.

Please point out how I used that logical fallacy, and "you said I used it" isn't a reason.

Quite simple my dear, you see the flaws and i see the perfections. Your own zeal is against you. From this you failed to see point and went down this path you called Ad hominem. Now Upon reading this you won't understand it, but i told you from the beginning you wouldn't. Now i would assume you want to know why and even if i have a true purpose. I'm not one to assume but there is fault in not assuming too. To answer this question i assumed for you, its because i could come out and say it but i found that doesn't work. Now i already know your reply, its not that original as you might think, trust me.

[I got bored one day]

frozen_water

Do you think that it is ethical to reward/incentivize donating to a charity?

What would be unethical about it...

Quote:

My opinion: I feel that rewarding charitable behavior does cause a person to develop a sense that they should be rewarded for all acts- even those meant to help others- and in turn removes any charity from the act. I also feel that it disrupts the ability of genuine charities-which have little to no ability to reward those who donate because they won’t ever have enough to give back to those who gave to them-that’s why they rely on donations. Finally, I feel the government has no business getting involved in charities, period.

Which has nothing to do with ethics...

[frozen_water]

XxX_HellCaster_XxX

Quite simple my dear, you see the flaws and i see the perfections.

You see the perfections in your own work? How modest of you.

Quote:

Your own zeal is against you. From this you failed to see point and went down this path you called Ad hominem.

This path? Now I'm positive you have no idea what Ad Hominem means, Google is your friend, go use it.

Quote:

Now Upon reading this you won't understand it, but i told you from the beginning you wouldn't.

Another one of those baseless accusations, have you ever been informed of the proper debate etiquite?

Quote:

Now i would assume you want to know why and even if i have a true purpose. I'm not one to assume but there is fault in not assuming too. To answer this question i assumed for you, its because i could come out and say it but i found that doesn't work.

Speaking of assuming, you seem to make quite a large and again, unfouded assumption that I won't understand without any evidence to show that I couldn't comprehend, another fallacy.

Quote:

Now i already know your reply, its not that original as you might think, trust me.

Now your a fortune teller? Fascinating, do go on.

[frozen_water]

Death and Misery

frozen_water

Do you think that it is ethical to reward/incentivize donating to a charity?

What would be unethical about it...

Quote:

My opinion: I feel that rewarding charitable behavior does cause a person to develop a sense that they should be rewarded for all acts- even those meant to help others- and in turn removes any charity from the act. I also feel that it disrupts the ability of genuine charities-which have little to no ability to reward those who donate because they won’t ever have enough to give back to those who gave to them-that’s why they rely on donations. Finally, I feel the government has no business getting involved in charities, period.

Which has nothing to do with ethics...Ethics deal with understood ideas of right and wrong, if it is understood that selflessness is right, then materialsim (which is perpetuated by such actions, and the opposite of selflessness) is considered immoral. So yes, it does involve ethics.

[I got bored one day]

frozen_water

Ethics deal with understood ideas of right and wrong, if it is understood that selflessness is right, then materialsim (which is perpetuated by such actions, and the opposite of selflessness) is considered immoral. So yes, it does involve ethics.

Huh? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume, like the 90% of people I come across who say things like this, that you haven't a clue and can't build a proof for it.