41–50 of 54 posts
Interesting. This baselines the cost of one life to $2000 effectively. So I could trade two lives for a top of the line Macbook Pro. Buy an SF home for 500 lives. I spend one human life to live in SF every month. Huh.
If the numbers are to be believed, the comparison would be more like one human life for every coffee you buy(<$4 to save a human life).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get your point, but don't be too down on yourself. Nobody is running around the Against Malaria Foundation saying "quick, buy 125,000 more nets!". Rather, they take in money, and they assign something tangible (in this case, a net that's extrapolated to a life) to each donation so it feels a bit more connected. This isn't to even remotely take away from what Derek did – I've been a fan for years, and this was one o…
Oh no, not to worry. Thanks for your concern, though. It is very kind. Perhaps undeserved, though. The real realization is that even knowing this, I will not change my actions, i.e. it isn't ignorance. The practice of what I do is that I value an arbitrary human life pretty lowly. I think if you gave me a live feed of a child dying, I would certainly pay the $5k to stop the child from dying, or the $10k, or the whate…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People broadcast what they ate for breakfast! Doing the same when you have donated (any amount of money) doesn’t lessen it in any way.
It lessens it for the author because they're looking for validation from someone in some type of way, the same way the breakfast people do. If you're content being someone that needs validation from other people for your actions, then sure, it doesn't lessen it for them.
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.
This is assuming that the motive to post this was to gain publicity......
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Very true, as St. Matthew has written "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 - tho…
From a purely utilitarian perspective, it make no difference. If it encourages others to follow suit, its a net bonus if anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Charitable acts being lessened by others learning about them is possibly the most harmful widespread opinion that exists today. Your comment makes it less likely that others will broadcast their charitable giving, result in less people being prompted to give, and overall reduce the amount of giving in the world; all for no gain for yourself or anyone else. You want "a bit sad"? Dwell on that for a while.
There's a "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode where Larry David's character donates to a museum with his name on the donation. There's no self deception for him; he wants to do something good AND he wants the credit. And that's totally fine! The character is self aware enough to know that part of his motivation is selfish. My point is that by not acknowledging the selfish part of "wanting the credit", the author comes off…
Re: "cheapening", who exactly is ranking the charitable act and why does their perspective matter? I was raised with that ideology but eventually abandoned it.
Nowadays, I care a lot more that something helpful is done that the signaling attempt to admit our desire for recognition or hide our involvement in the good deed because that mindset prevents a lot of helpful giving in my experience.
2. From all appearances, he gave the money away out of generosity rather than the need for recognition. Didn't strike me as celebrity self aggrandizement.
3. He felt both the what and the how are worth publicizing. He's a known 'thought leader' after all.
Of the three, only the third is remotely objectionable. I think it's ok to say good things about oneself doing good things.
I bet it's correlated with generosity and more likely to be so than the mean spiritedness that comes from wagging a finger at those who are putting themselves out there.