3 deleted 89 characters in body
source | link

There is also the fact that we live in a world that is organized by economics.

If we all decide to consistently give our $10 to the poor and no one goes to movies, we have just created a couple more poor people -- the projectionist from the movie theater, and the counter server who sold the drinks. And since those people also spend money, we are undermining the economics of our community.

The next step up on the hierarchy of needs, the way our world is actually constituted, is a job of some sort that secures ongoing access to the lower needs. Many would say that below that level, people are not really living. They are not even subsisting, they are merely existing.

We have no control over the creation of the needs of the poor, people breed or they don't, and they develop problems that prevent them from being fully engaged in society for reasons beyond any humans' control. But we have control over the creation of work opportunities, by spending reasonably.

So another aspect of the question is whether it is better to directly support the needs of people with whom you have little contact or relationship, or indirectly support a functioning community with a shared set of values over which you can have some control.

Most of us generally choose the latter value, even if it abstractly offends our compassionate impulses.

I may seem heartless, but from that point of view, charities that simply meet needs are not doing what they could do. They are not putting these people to work. In the extreme case, like orders of nuns in poverty service, they are undercutting the value of the workers who give them free labor.

Your better option is to assign the service of the needs of those who cannot contribute to some shared base, like the government, or the kind of cultural center that the Church used to be when the tithe could be mandated. Then individuals should focus on providing for tiers higher on the scale of needs, and pull people up into a higher position.

Unless charity is in some way compulsory, it is just a competition to seem better than others seem. It is not a genuine reflection of compassion, or we would abandon our entire way of life and live as the equals of those who inhabit the margins of society, society would fall apart, and no one would be helped. When it is compulsory, it represents a civic value, when it is individual, it represents an affectation of self-defensive pretense. (A real sentiment of Nietzsche, to offset the slander against him in the other answer.)

There is also the fact that we live in a world that is organized by economics.

If we all decide to consistently give our $10 to the poor and no one goes to movies, we have just created a couple more poor people -- the projectionist from the movie theater, and the counter server who sold the drinks. And since those people also spend money, we are undermining the economics of our community.

The next step up on the hierarchy of needs, the way our world is actually constituted, is a job of some sort that secures ongoing access to the lower needs. Many would say that below that level, people are not really living. They are not even subsisting, they are merely existing.

We have no control over the creation of the needs of the poor, people breed or they don't, and they develop problems that prevent them from being fully engaged in society for reasons beyond any humans' control. But we have control over the creation of work opportunities, by spending reasonably.

So another aspect of the question is whether it is better to directly support the needs of people with whom you have little contact or relationship, or indirectly support a functioning community with a shared set of values over which you can have some control.

Most of us generally choose the latter value, even if it abstractly offends our compassionate impulses.

I may seem heartless, but from that point of view, charities that simply meet needs are not doing what they could do. They are not putting these people to work. In the extreme case, like orders of nuns in poverty service, they are undercutting the value of the workers who give them free labor.

Your better option is to assign the service of the needs of those who cannot contribute to some shared base, like the government, or the kind of cultural center that the Church used to be when the tithe could be mandated. Then individuals should focus on providing for tiers higher on the scale of needs, and pull people up into a higher position.

Unless charity is in some way compulsory, it is just a competition to seem better than others seem. It is not a genuine reflection of compassion, or we would abandon our entire way of life and live as the equals of those who inhabit the margins of society, society would fall apart, and no one would be helped. When it is compulsory, it represents a civic value, when it is individual, it represents an affectation of self-defensive pretense. (A real sentiment of Nietzsche, to offset the slander against him in the other answer.)

There is also the fact that we live in a world that is organized by economics.

If we all decide to consistently give our $10 to the poor and no one goes to movies, we have just created a couple more poor people -- the projectionist from the movie theater, and the counter server who sold the drinks. And since those people also spend money, we are undermining the economics of our community.

The next step up on the hierarchy of needs, the way our world is actually constituted, is a job of some sort that secures ongoing access to the lower needs. Many would say that below that level, people are not really living. They are not even subsisting, they are merely existing.

We have no control over the creation of the needs of the poor, people breed or they don't, and they develop problems that prevent them from being fully engaged in society for reasons beyond any humans' control. But we have control over the creation of work opportunities, by spending reasonably.

So another aspect of the question is whether it is better to directly support the needs of people with whom you have little contact or relationship, or indirectly support a functioning community with a shared set of values over which you can have some control.

Most of us generally choose the latter value, even if it abstractly offends our compassionate impulses.

I may seem heartless, but from that point of view, charities that simply meet needs are not doing what they could do. They are not putting these people to work. In the extreme case, like orders of nuns in poverty service, they are undercutting the value of the workers who give them free labor.

Your better option is to assign the service of the needs of those who cannot contribute to some shared base, like the government, or the kind of cultural center that the Church used to be when the tithe could be mandated. Then individuals should focus on providing for tiers higher on the scale of needs, and pull people up into a higher position.

Unless charity is in some way compulsory, it is just a competition to seem better than others seem. It is not a genuine reflection of compassion, or we would abandon our entire way of life and live as the equals of those who inhabit the margins of society, society would fall apart, and no one would be helped. When it is compulsory, it represents a civic value, when it is individual, it represents an affectation of self-defensive pretense.

2 added 311 characters in body
source | link

There is also the fact that we live in a world that is organized by economics.

If we all decide to consistently give our $10 to the poor and no one goes to movies, we have just created a couple more poor people -- the projectionist from the movie theater, and the counter server who sold the drinks. And since those people also spend money, we are undermining the economics of our community.

The next step up on the hierarchy of needs, the way our world is actually constituted, is a job of some sort that secures ongoing access to the lower needs. Many would say that below that level, people are not really living. They are not even subsisting, they are merely existing.

We have no control over the creation of the needs of the poor, people breed or they don't, and they develop problems that prevent them from being fully engaged in society for reasons beyond any humans' control. But we have control over the creation of work opportunities, by spending reasonably.

So another aspect of the question is whether it is better to directly support the needs of people with whom you have little contact or relationship, or indirectly support a functioning community with a shared set of values over which you can have some control.

Most of us generally choose the latter value, even if it abstractly offends our compassionate impulses.

I may seem heartless, but from that point of view, charities that simply meet needs are not doing what they could do. They are not putting these people to work. In the extreme case, like orders of nuns in poverty service, they are undercutting the value of the workers who give them free labor.

Your better option is to assign the service of the needs of those who cannot contribute to some shared base, like the government, or the kind of cultural center that the Church used to be when the tithe could be mandated. Then individuals should focus on providing for tiers higher on the scale of needs, and pull people up into a higher position.

Unless charity is in some way compulsory, it is just a competition to seem better than others seem. It is not a genuine reflection of compassion, or we would abandon our entire way of life and live as the equals of those who inhabit the margins of society, society would fall apart, and no one would be helped. When it is compulsory, it represents a civic value, when it is individual, it represents an affectation of self-defensive pretense. (A real sentiment of Nietzsche, to offset the slander against him in the other answer.)

There is also the fact that we live in a world that is organized by economics.

If we all decide to consistently give our $10 to the poor and no one goes to movies, we have just created a couple more poor people -- the projectionist from the movie theater, and the counter server who sold the drinks. And since those people also spend money, we are undermining the economics of our community.

The next step up on the hierarchy of needs, the way our world is actually constituted, is a job of some sort that secures ongoing access to the lower needs. Many would say that below that level, people are not really living. They are not even subsisting, they are merely existing.

We have no control over the creation of the needs of the poor, people breed or they don't, and they develop problems that prevent them from being fully engaged in society for reasons beyond any humans' control. But we have control over the creation of work opportunities, by spending reasonably.

So another aspect of the question is whether it is better to directly support the needs of people with whom you have little contact or relationship, or indirectly support a functioning community with a shared set of values over which you can have some control.

Most of us generally choose the latter value, even if it abstractly offends our compassionate impulses.

I may seem heartless, but from that point of view, charities that simply meet needs are not doing what they could do. They are not putting these people to work. In the extreme case, like orders of nuns in poverty service, they are undercutting the value of the workers who give them free labor.

Your better option is to assign the service of the needs of those who cannot contribute to some shared base, like the government, or the kind of cultural center that the Church used to be when the tithe could be mandated. Then individuals should focus on providing for tiers higher on the scale of needs, and pull people up into a higher position.

There is also the fact that we live in a world that is organized by economics.

If we all decide to consistently give our $10 to the poor and no one goes to movies, we have just created a couple more poor people -- the projectionist from the movie theater, and the counter server who sold the drinks. And since those people also spend money, we are undermining the economics of our community.

The next step up on the hierarchy of needs, the way our world is actually constituted, is a job of some sort that secures ongoing access to the lower needs. Many would say that below that level, people are not really living. They are not even subsisting, they are merely existing.

We have no control over the creation of the needs of the poor, people breed or they don't, and they develop problems that prevent them from being fully engaged in society for reasons beyond any humans' control. But we have control over the creation of work opportunities, by spending reasonably.

So another aspect of the question is whether it is better to directly support the needs of people with whom you have little contact or relationship, or indirectly support a functioning community with a shared set of values over which you can have some control.

Most of us generally choose the latter value, even if it abstractly offends our compassionate impulses.

I may seem heartless, but from that point of view, charities that simply meet needs are not doing what they could do. They are not putting these people to work. In the extreme case, like orders of nuns in poverty service, they are undercutting the value of the workers who give them free labor.

Your better option is to assign the service of the needs of those who cannot contribute to some shared base, like the government, or the kind of cultural center that the Church used to be when the tithe could be mandated. Then individuals should focus on providing for tiers higher on the scale of needs, and pull people up into a higher position.

Unless charity is in some way compulsory, it is just a competition to seem better than others seem. It is not a genuine reflection of compassion, or we would abandon our entire way of life and live as the equals of those who inhabit the margins of society, society would fall apart, and no one would be helped. When it is compulsory, it represents a civic value, when it is individual, it represents an affectation of self-defensive pretense. (A real sentiment of Nietzsche, to offset the slander against him in the other answer.)

1
source | link

There is also the fact that we live in a world that is organized by economics.

If we all decide to consistently give our $10 to the poor and no one goes to movies, we have just created a couple more poor people -- the projectionist from the movie theater, and the counter server who sold the drinks. And since those people also spend money, we are undermining the economics of our community.

The next step up on the hierarchy of needs, the way our world is actually constituted, is a job of some sort that secures ongoing access to the lower needs. Many would say that below that level, people are not really living. They are not even subsisting, they are merely existing.

We have no control over the creation of the needs of the poor, people breed or they don't, and they develop problems that prevent them from being fully engaged in society for reasons beyond any humans' control. But we have control over the creation of work opportunities, by spending reasonably.

So another aspect of the question is whether it is better to directly support the needs of people with whom you have little contact or relationship, or indirectly support a functioning community with a shared set of values over which you can have some control.

Most of us generally choose the latter value, even if it abstractly offends our compassionate impulses.

I may seem heartless, but from that point of view, charities that simply meet needs are not doing what they could do. They are not putting these people to work. In the extreme case, like orders of nuns in poverty service, they are undercutting the value of the workers who give them free labor.

Your better option is to assign the service of the needs of those who cannot contribute to some shared base, like the government, or the kind of cultural center that the Church used to be when the tithe could be mandated. Then individuals should focus on providing for tiers higher on the scale of needs, and pull people up into a higher position.