News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

Survival of the weak or of the masses?

Started by Eris, April 21, 2008, 11:55:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Eris

I have seen many theists claim that because there are no "atheist charities" that atheists are not moral. I've always had a problem with this and have in the past, along some of my fellow atheists, tried to prove that atheists really are charitable. Now this seems to me to be a weakness, letting theists set the rules for morality and "prove" that atheists are not moral simply because they say that charity is a good thing.

As a fairly new atheist, I continue to struggle with the question of whether or not to be charitable as it supports the existense of humanity's weaknesses, or to be uncharitable even though it's so scorned in today's society. I have to be honest and admit that I am not one of the intrinsically moral people who can scoff at theists when they ask where an atheist's morals come from, because I really don't know what is right or wrong. IMO, the words "right" and "wrong" depend solely on the goals one is trying to acheive. My problem is in deciding which goals are the best?

Should my goal be to act in the best interests of all of humanity, sacrificing individuals where need be? Or should it be to uplift the individuals regardless of their effect on the human race?

What do you guys think?
Seek the truth, come whence it may, cost what it may.

SteveS

Interesting post.  I say: follow your own ideal.  If helping all humanity makes you feel good, go for it!  If not, don't do it.

I wouldn't consider myself abundantly charitable (as long as you ignore the taxes I pay,  ;)  ), but I do donate to several causes.  My motivation in doing so is personal --- it makes me feel good.  Seems to me there's a problem with many charities, and that some of them are significantly sleazy.  I do try to make sure anything I do is effective, and not just lining the pockets of some con-man who's playing off everyone's guilt to extract money from them.

Here's a good example: someone trying to sell me magazines because a portion of the proceeds goes to special olympics.  This, to me, is ridiculous.  The amount they actually give to special olympics pales in comparison to the amount they keep for themselves.  If I want to help special olympics, it is far more effective to donate to the organization directly.  Why pay for a magazine I don't want, just to make an inefficient donation to special olympics?

rlrose328

Quote from: "SteveS"Here's a good example: someone trying to sell me magazines because a portion of the proceeds goes to special olympics.  This, to me, is ridiculous.  The amount they actually give to special olympics pales in comparison to the amount they keep for themselves.  If I want to help special olympics, it is far more effective to donate to the organization directly.  Why pay for a magazine I don't want, just to make an inefficient donation to special olympics?

That sounds exactly like my husband... the school does a tremendous amount of fundraising.  They sell entertainment books, cookie dough, the fun run is coming up... each year, we get the entertainment book and we don't use it.  WE pay $30 and the school gets a portion of that.  He said next year, we're just going to write a check to the school for $30 and be done with it.  Same with cookie dough.  It's horrible stuff but we bought 3 boxes of that crap and ended up throwing it away.  

But the thing is, those companies that do the fundraisers have "rewards" for the kids when they sell the stuff and the kid would feel left out if he doesn't participate.  It's not that I want him to HAVE to fit in, but it's important to teach him that fundraising is important to a community (in this case, the school).  What do we do?

We donate goods and services (we host the school's website for free and we registered the addresses) and money when we can.  I, too, look for charities that are not affiliated with a religion.  Not because I don't want to support the religion necessarily... but I figure they've got a multitude of people giving them money BECAUSE they are religious.  I'd rather look for a charity that will help anyone just because... with no affiliation with religion.  I support Planned Parenthood and the American Diabetes Association with regular donations.  We also support the Zoo and the local science museum with memberships.
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


SteveS

Hey rlrose - you've asked the right person because I have an opinion on almost everything  ;)  :

Quote from: "rlrose328"But the thing is, those companies that do the fundraisers have "rewards" for the kids when they sell the stuff and the kid would feel left out if he doesn't participate. It's not that I want him to HAVE to fit in, but it's important to teach him that fundraising is important to a community (in this case, the school). What do we do?
In this case, I'd say the motivation is helping your child more than helping the recipients of the fundraising money, so I think its fine to go with it.

I just think it pays to keep clearly in mind what your motivations are and what you're trying to accomplish.  In other words, depending on how a person feels, I could certainly understand the decision to buy the cookie dough, and the decision to skip the cookie dough and donate to the school, and (for that matter) the decision to do neither.  I don't think these actions are inherently right or wrong - just depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

rlrose328

Sage advice, Steve... :-)

We're trying to get the kid to be more empathetic... he's kinda getting the hang of it.  We watched "Independence Day" with him the other day (he really likes Will Smith) and he cried at two points in the movie... when the alien ship blew up the building with the people on top (the other buildings getting blown up didn't phase him but he SAW those people and then SAW them get hit) and at the end, he completely fell apart when the Randy Quaid character flew up into the beam and sacrificed himself.  After the movie, we talked at great length about sacrifice and since then, he sees instance of sacrifice everywhere and he'll just say, "They sacrificed themselves, didn't they?"

He's very self-centered (he's 8 AND an only child) so anything we can do to get him to actively think of others... giving to charity, helping at school, donating worthy items to Goodwill (sorting out what is junk and what is usable... not using Goodwill as a garbage bin), helping around the house without being asked, not demanding he be given things before everyone else, bragging to the other kids at school (usu. about really silly things, like he gave a kid a bigger gift at the birthday party than another kid), and other such stuff.  I was an only child myself, so I know how it can be to be so concerned with self.  It's a hard thing to learn!
**Kerri**
The Rogue Atheist Scrapbooker
Come visit me on Facebook!


Whitney

I think it is stupid for theists to state that there are not atheist charities as if that is a bad thing.  All that means is that not many atheists are interested in trading aid for advertising their beliefs....there are tons of secular charities out there.  

What is bad is Catholic organizations which go to AIDS stricken third world countries to only further the problem by teaching them that condoms are bad.  There are some organizations that do pass out condoms in places like Africa, and from the shows I've seen the people are very thankful to be given a means to protect themselves and their loved ones.  I think religious charities are more likely to put their beliefs in front of what would support the greater good.

pjkeeley

Quote from: "Eris"I continue to struggle with the question of whether or not to be charitable as it supports the existense of humanity's weaknesses, or to be uncharitable even though it's so scorned in today's society.
Eris, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that being charitable "supports the existence of humanity's weaknesses". Could you elaborate?

Martian

Quote from: "pjkeeley"
Quote from: "Eris"I continue to struggle with the question of whether or not to be charitable as it supports the existense of humanity's weaknesses, or to be uncharitable even though it's so scorned in today's society.
Eris, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that being charitable "supports the existence of humanity's weaknesses". Could you elaborate?
I think he means that supporting the poor may actually be supporting the reason why people are poor, because they're lazy. That's the problem with welfare, it allows some people to get by without being productive.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson

(I DON'T BELIEVE GOD EXISTS)

pjkeeley

QuoteI think he means that supporting the poor may actually be supporting the reason why people are poor, because they're lazy. That's the problem with welfare, it allows some people to get by without being productive.
If so that is a horrible generalisation. Not all poor people are lazy, and charity is not the same as welfare. I await Eris' response.

Eris

Quote from: "pjkeeley"If so that is a horrible generalisation. Not all poor people are lazy, and charity is not the same as welfare. I await Eris' response.

No PJ, it's not a generalization at all. There are people who are poor who, with adequate resources, would rise above their current state and would cease to be a burden. In my original post, I didn't say there wasn't. However, Martian was correct about charity supporting the reason for such weaknesses as poverty. Guess what? It does. I did not say - nor do I mean - that it applies to each individual. But if you're throwing blanket sums around then you should expect your blanket to land on multiple types, not just one, and to deny that your resources went to something that your resources did indeed go to is rather ignorant.

Now, as Steve mentioned (and I agree with this method), we can be more selective about where our resources go. To be selective is to deny resources to a particular person/group for a particular reason. This makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is the illusion that I am a good person just because I give. There is an appropriate time to give and an appropriate time to withold, IMO.

As you may have noticed, I'm in a different mood today than I was when I posted this thread.  :P  

Question left standing:
QuoteShould my goal be to act in the best interests of all of humanity, sacrificing individuals where need be? Or should it be to uplift the individuals regardless of their effect on the human race?
It seems a self-evident truth that we cannot both benefit the group without hurting individuals. For the health and progression of the whole, we may need to shed some people as we would shed skin cells. (Continuing with the skin cell analogy, we do not purposely get rid of them, we passively let them die. Don't think I'm advocating that we actively attempt, with our finite and inadequate wisdom, to cleanse our own species). It is also evident to me that we cannot uplift every individual who is in trouble without hurting society.
We see this exact dilema when debating the proper judicial system for criminals: capital punishment? No capital punishment? Tax-funded prisons? So if it helps you to think of my question as it relates to this issue instead of the charity issue (as there may be more emotional triggors to confound the logic), so be it.

What is "moral" in these cases? Or are they both "moral" in their own ways?
Seek the truth, come whence it may, cost what it may.

pjkeeley

Quote from: "Eris"No PJ, it's not a generalization at all.
Yes, it very much was. Martian's comment was: "I think [Eris] means that supporting the poor may actually be supporting the reason why people are poor, because they're lazy." I said it is an unfair generalisation to call poor people lazy. How is it not? I now understand that that's not the position you're arguing, but that was the position I was responding to.

Quote from: "Eris"Martian was correct about charity supporting the reason for such weaknesses as poverty. Guess what? It does. I did not say - nor do I mean - that it applies to each individual. But if you're throwing blanket sums around then you should expect your blanket to land on multiple types, not just one, and to deny that your resources went to something that your resources did indeed go to is rather ignorant.
I'm not sure I understand your line of argument. You claim charity contributes to the reasons that cause the 'weakness' of poverty; what, in your opinion, are these reasons?

Quote from: "Eris"It seems a self-evident truth that we cannot both benefit the group without hurting individuals. For the health and progression of the whole, we may need to shed some people as we would shed skin cells. (Continuing with the skin cell analogy, we do not purposely get rid of them, we passively let them die. Don't think I'm advocating that we actively attempt, with our finite and inadequate wisdom, to cleanse our own species).
Passively letting people die isn't like shedding skin cells. I can't believe I even had to type that. In what context are you talking about society "letting people die"? Is this something that is already occuring or something that you are advocating? Explain.

I anticipate a worthwhile discussion once I understand further where you're coming from.

Loffler

There's a very simple reason there are so many Christian charities and clubs in general, and so few atheist charities:

When you're a Christian, by definition it's the most important thing about you. When you're an atheist, your atheism is far from the most important thing about you. I might not give to an "atheist charity," but that's only because I would probably be more inclined to give to science charity.

A good tool for understanding this is how atheists handle death. Do they donate their remains to "atheism?" No, they donate them to science. Contributing to science is the most secular thing a person can do, as science is the cold, hard analysis of the natural world. "Atheism" is only the name we give secularism in the context of a religious discussion.