31–40 of 54 posts
Broadcasting it to the entire world charity to show the world how generous or or good one is, is uncharitable. This is just someone getting ego trip after spending 250k that they did not need.
It's a bit sad that you've taken a wonderful, altruistic act and cheapened it by feeling the need to broadcast it on the internet :(
> cheapened it I don't follow. Does broadcasting this on the internet reduce the number of lives saved? The point of altruism to save lives, so as long as those are maximized, I don't see any "cheapening" happening.
The number of lives saved remains the same whether you broadcast it or not.
So, what's the point in broadcasting?
Charity is to be considered charity when nobody gets to know about it. Broadcasting it to the entire world charity to show the world how generous or or good one is, is uncharitable. This is just someone getting ego trip after spending 250k that they did not need.
A society in which status seeking individuals are incentivized to publically save lives with their money is a healthy society.
None of us are that impressive in the shadows. We're all a little performative, at our core.
May as well use our instinct for performance for good.
It's a bit sad that you've taken a wonderful, altruistic act and cheapened it by feeling the need to broadcast it on the internet :(
Charity is to be considered charity when nobody gets to know about it. Broadcasting it to the entire world charity to show the world how generous or or good one is, is uncharitable. This is just someone getting ego trip after spending 250k that they did not need.
Also, it doesn't hurt to have some pride when you do good things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The notion of "Dead Child Currency" ( https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6cRhG6PKeASdNHqxD/dead-child... ) may intrigue you.
I enjoyed that. Interesting to me that I value arbitrarily children so low. Getting my turbocharged engine vs. getting the same car without a turbo could have saved a couple of lives. I suspect I would have made the same choice and killed two kids for a turbo if I had thought explicitly in those terms then.
Charity is to be considered charity when nobody gets to know about it. Broadcasting it to the entire world charity to show the world how generous or or good one is, is uncharitable. This is just someone getting ego trip after spending 250k that they did not need.
Even the celebs are paying the "tour guides", what they've created is an industry where people pretend to be poor to make a living.
The problem is it's easy to get good publicity even when things get worse instead of getting better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> cheapened it I don't follow. Does broadcasting this on the internet reduce the number of lives saved? The point of altruism to save lives, so as long as those are maximized, I don't see any "cheapening" happening.
The point of altruism when you broadcast is to feel good yourself. The number of lives saved remains the same whether you broadcast it or not. So, what's the point in broadcasting?
"But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"
A lot of charity is not for the sake of helping someone, but for the sake of making oneself to look noble, get publicity, or earn money (like those "buy X, then we will donate Y" promos).
Personally I don't have such bad feelings about that, as it is a win-win situation very often - those who need get something eventually. I can tolerate a little bit of hypocrisy in that case.
Charity is to be considered charity when nobody gets to know about it. Broadcasting it to the entire world charity to show the world how generous or or good one is, is uncharitable. This is just someone getting ego trip after spending 250k that they did not need.
What’s wrong with someone doing good and taking credit?
Heck, what’s wrong with them doing good solely for the credit? As long as doing good is the side effect, good is done
Is it because you don’t enjoy it as much, knowing who did it? Bit selfish. Or maybe it makes your own anonymous charitable works (or lack thereof) feel not as good? It’s a lot of money but this isn’t a race!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> cheapened it I don't follow. Does broadcasting this on the internet reduce the number of lives saved? The point of altruism to save lives, so as long as those are maximized, I don't see any "cheapening" happening.
The point of altruism when you broadcast is to feel good yourself. The number of lives saved remains the same whether you broadcast it or not. So, what's the point in broadcasting?