eclectica
2003-08-21, 11:38
When you give a gift, are strings and conditions attached to the gift? It is better not to receive a gift than to receive a gift with too many conditions attached to it.
Do not underestimate the pride of people. They would rather be poor than have to accept gifts with many conditions tied to them. When you consider all the social organizations and charities out there, then you might think that no one is hungry or homeless in a country like the United States. But because of conditions tied to charity, people choose to live on the streets because they don't want to be bound by the rules of a homeless shelter. Also, they are mentally ill and paranoid, and that is a bigger factor than their pride as to why they are on the streets.
Even charity tends to be done for selfish reasons; to feel good about oneself and to have good social status. If people were completely altruistic then all their donations would be anonymous. Do you believe that virtue is its own reward? Perhaps it could be, but then to get credit for being charitable, is a welcome bonus.
Too much altruism and selflessness goes against self-preservation. If we were to devote our lives to solving the problems of the World, then we would never be happy. It is also unfair when just a few people shoulder the burden.
In p2p file sharing, there is a concept of the leech, which has been pointed out be a bit oxymoronic. How can one say that one refuses to share to a person who refuses to share? Here is my explanation for why it is not oxymoronic: it is because of the scarcity of bandwidth, that one is justified in selecting who one shares one's files with. By allowing a leech to download, it deprives a more deserving person a slot to download. One must budget one's charity and limited resources.
Because some people are more deserving or needy than others, gifts implicitly have strings and conditions attached to them. Gifts should be given to people who want or appreciate them. Due to social politeness, it is hard to tell if a person really appreciates a gift or not. Check their garbage can to find out the truth. Or maybe they're collectors of junk who refuse to throw out anything. This happens because of the automated gift giving, that occurs at times like Christmas. I think it's better that people give nothing than to give useless crap to people. I know someone who gives his father $50 in a card for Christmas, and his father does the same for him. It seems they've found a solution to the money losing and guilt induced process of automated gift giving.
The best approach to charity is to see the shades of grey rather than it being a black and white issue. When giving gifts, it is good to have a minimal amount of strings and conditions attached. Do not pressure a person to like your gift or to like you after giving the gift. Instead learn from the act to decide if in the future you need to choose a different gift to give, or a different person to give to.
Do not underestimate the pride of people. They would rather be poor than have to accept gifts with many conditions tied to them. When you consider all the social organizations and charities out there, then you might think that no one is hungry or homeless in a country like the United States. But because of conditions tied to charity, people choose to live on the streets because they don't want to be bound by the rules of a homeless shelter. Also, they are mentally ill and paranoid, and that is a bigger factor than their pride as to why they are on the streets.
Even charity tends to be done for selfish reasons; to feel good about oneself and to have good social status. If people were completely altruistic then all their donations would be anonymous. Do you believe that virtue is its own reward? Perhaps it could be, but then to get credit for being charitable, is a welcome bonus.
Too much altruism and selflessness goes against self-preservation. If we were to devote our lives to solving the problems of the World, then we would never be happy. It is also unfair when just a few people shoulder the burden.
In p2p file sharing, there is a concept of the leech, which has been pointed out be a bit oxymoronic. How can one say that one refuses to share to a person who refuses to share? Here is my explanation for why it is not oxymoronic: it is because of the scarcity of bandwidth, that one is justified in selecting who one shares one's files with. By allowing a leech to download, it deprives a more deserving person a slot to download. One must budget one's charity and limited resources.
Because some people are more deserving or needy than others, gifts implicitly have strings and conditions attached to them. Gifts should be given to people who want or appreciate them. Due to social politeness, it is hard to tell if a person really appreciates a gift or not. Check their garbage can to find out the truth. Or maybe they're collectors of junk who refuse to throw out anything. This happens because of the automated gift giving, that occurs at times like Christmas. I think it's better that people give nothing than to give useless crap to people. I know someone who gives his father $50 in a card for Christmas, and his father does the same for him. It seems they've found a solution to the money losing and guilt induced process of automated gift giving.
The best approach to charity is to see the shades of grey rather than it being a black and white issue. When giving gifts, it is good to have a minimal amount of strings and conditions attached. Do not pressure a person to like your gift or to like you after giving the gift. Instead learn from the act to decide if in the future you need to choose a different gift to give, or a different person to give to.