Why should I help poor people in Africa?

[Dukasaur]

They will never return my favors anyway, so why spend money on them when they won't give me anything in return? Isn't that just a bad investment? I get the point with helping your neighbors and so on but these people will never give me anything. And if I'm in it to feel better about myself, why not give money to someone poor nearby, who can praise my name, hug me and thank me for my incredible kindness? Giving money to Africans is just pointless, most of the money you give won't arrive to the people you intended anyway.

Truthfully, only you can answer that question for yourself. If there isn't enough reason for you to do so, then you shouldn't.

Well, obviously I don't think there's enough reason for me to do so, but I'm also hinting that there should be no valid reason for others to do it either. Performing charity to people who will be able to reciprocate is just overall better, do you argue against that?

If you're expecting reciprocity, then it isn't charity, it's trade.

Charity, by definition, involves no expectation of a payoff.

[Qwert]

They will never return my favors anyway, so why spend money on them when they won't give me anything in return? Isn't that just a bad investment? I get the point with helping your neighbors and so on but these people will never give me anything. And if I'm in it to feel better about myself, why not give money to someone poor nearby, who can praise my name, hug me and thank me for my incredible kindness? Giving money to Africans is just pointless, most of the money you give won't arrive to the people you intended anyway.

Truthfully, only you can answer that question for yourself. If there isn't enough reason for you to do so, then you shouldn't.

Well, obviously I don't think there's enough reason for me to do so, but I'm also hinting that there should be no valid reason for others to do it either. Performing charity to people who will be able to reciprocate is just overall better, do you argue against that?

If you're expecting reciprocity, then it isn't charity, it's trade.

Charity, by definition, involves no expectation of a payoff.

trade,i like this.. US far,far before trade slaves from africa to US, and get them very cheap,, and now its time to pay right price.
If everybody give all back to africa, what they steal for centuries, maybe they will not be so poor?

[benga]

They will never return my favors anyway, so why spend money on them when they won't give me anything in return? Isn't that just a bad investment? I get the point with helping your neighbors and so on but these people will never give me anything. And if I'm in it to feel better about myself, why not give money to someone poor nearby, who can praise my name, hug me and thank me for my incredible kindness? Giving money to Africans is just pointless, most of the money you give won't arrive to the people you intended anyway.

Truthfully, only you can answer that question for yourself. If there isn't enough reason for you to do so, then you shouldn't.

Well, obviously I don't think there's enough reason for me to do so, but I'm also hinting that there should be no valid reason for others to do it either. Performing charity to people who will be able to reciprocate is just overall better, do you argue against that?

If you're expecting reciprocity, then it isn't charity, it's trade.

Charity, by definition, involves no expectation of a payoff.

trade,i like this.. US far,far before trade slaves from africa to US, and get them very cheap,, and now its time to pay right price.
If everybody give all back to africa, what they steal for centuries, maybe they will not be so poor?

no, fair trade will be if all those white people go to Africa and be slaves for black

[PLAYER57832]

They will never return my favors anyway, so why spend money on them when they won't give me anything in return? Isn't that just a bad investment? I get the point with helping your neighbors and so on but these people will never give me anything. And if I'm in it to feel better about myself, why not give money to someone poor nearby, who can praise my name, hug me and thank me for my incredible kindness? Giving money to Africans is just pointless, most of the money you give won't arrive to the people you intended anyway.

Your last argument.. that it doesn't go to the people intended, is the ONLY legitimate one in your whole diatribe.

Aside from the morality, most of us do feel we have some obligation to help others, if we ignore other people, they tend to rise up and become our enemies. Its much cheaper to send food, people to train in agricultural methods and such, than to send armies.

[PLAYER57832]

The current budget request for Africa for fiscal 2014 is over $8 billion. That is a lot of tax payer money that I personally believe could be put to better use here at home.
http://foreignassistance.gov/CountryIntro.aspx

In many cases, that is true, but sort of a different issue. A lot of government aid is really targeted for political gain at home, rather than targeted at actually solving real problems. Other aid is just misplaced/misguided because basically by the time government gets involved, the situation has already changed. Not always, but many times.

At any rate, whether specific government aid is appropriate is a different question from whether we should give aid at all, and whether we should give as individuals is yet another question.

[PLAYER57832]

If I'm left with the choice of either helping a homeless person in Sweden, or an African businessman, the choice is easy .

You have to work pretty hard to be homeless in Sweden! Not sure I want to get in the way of anyone making that much effort to be a deadbeat.

[mordigan]

who is telling you that you should help poor people in Africa?

[john9blue]

Are you the only homophobic american with a cupcake sized brain, or are there more of you? Too bad you guys didn't have concentration camps, your country actually might've needed to get rid of some slag.

there are a lot of homophobic stupid americans. too bad what i said wasn't homophobic or stupid.

and i agree, we could use some concentration camps for certain segments of our population.

[Lootifer]

I recently cut off my international charity and plan on dontating much more locally (once we get slightly more financially secure). I agree that local charity is a much better idea.

[BigBallinStalin]

listen to peter singer if you want a bunch of good reasons to donate to people in africa (although one could easily make the argument that donating to poor africans actually perpetuates suffering)

The main problem of most philosophers is that they do not care to determine the soundness of their arguments. They simply assume that the aid will get there and help (e.g. Peter Singer).

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe you should become a microlender on Kiva. You can help loan some middling amounts to people around the globe (some countries in Africa included), and you'll get paid back over a 8-16 months. That way, you feel like you are helping, and you technically get everything returned. Years ago I put like a 100 dollars on a whim, and over those years I've loaned money out to some 25 people I think, and I've never not got it all back.


--Andy

If I loan 100$ to a homeless person and he gives it back to me a couple of months later, I'm not sure he really needed the money. If the people you are talking about can pay back loans, they're not very poor at all.

Microloans ftw.

[john9blue]

The main problem of most philosophers is that they do not care to determine the soundness of their arguments. They simply assume that the aid will get there and help (e.g. Peter Singer).

singer donates a decent chunk of his salary to charity. or are you saying that he's donating to the wrong charities?

[BigBallinStalin]

The main problem of most philosophers is that they do not care to determine the soundness of their arguments. They simply assume that the aid will get there and help (e.g. Peter Singer).

singer donates a decent chunk of his salary to charity. or are you saying that he's donating to the wrong charities?

I'm saying he doesn't test the soundness of his argument. Neither do his adherents. They rely on implied and presumably true premises (e.g. the aid will get there, the aid on net will help, etc.).

In short, good intentions don't always lead to good outcomes. And, there's systemic/fundamental problems which donating to foreign countries does not overcome but does reinforce, which is counterproductive. Causing more harm then signals to the idiots well-intentioned that even more help is needed, so they'll feel inclined to 'help' more. It's a dumb cycle, from which Singer-esque philosophy doesn't lead us.

Also, Singer contradicted his own position. He helped his mother instead of helping those worse off (something about his failing to stick to that lesser evil principle--whatever it was. It went something like this: you shouldn't donate to those within your country, but instead to those who are in more dire straits, e.g. people in Africa). To be consistent, one would have to drop everything, ignore friends and family, and start being essentially a slave for others who are worse off. (It's not a good philosophy; even the Buddhists overcame this problem without the need of constructing valid arguments, unknown in soundness).

[john9blue]

I'm saying he doesn't test the soundness of his argument. Neither do his adherents. They rely on implied and presumably true premises (e.g. the aid will get there, the aid on net will help, etc.).

In short, good intentions don't always lead to good outcomes. And, there's systemic/fundamental problems which donating to foreign countries does not overcome but does reinforce, which is counterproductive. Causing more harm then signals to the idiots well-intentioned that even more help is needed, so they'll feel inclined to 'help' more. It's a dumb cycle, from which Singer-esque philosophy doesn't lead us.

Also, Singer contradicted his own position. He helped his mother instead of helping those worse off (something about his failing to stick to that lesser evil principle--whatever it was. It went something like this: you shouldn't donate to those within your country, but instead to those who are in more dire straits, e.g. people in Africa). To be consistent, one would have to drop everything, ignore friends and family, and start being essentially a slave for others who are worse off. (It's not a good philosophy; even the Buddhists overcame this problem without the need of constructing valid arguments, unknown in soundness).

good points, but why single out singer? pretty much everybody does this stuff. if anything in philosophy didn't rely on "implied and presumably true premises" then it would be some other type of science instead.

[Gillipig]

Are you the only homophobic american with a cupcake sized brain, or are there more of you? Too bad you guys didn't have concentration camps, your country actually might've needed to get rid of some slag.

there are a lot of homophobic stupid americans. too bad what i said wasn't homophobic or stupid.

and i agree, we could use some concentration camps for certain segments of our population.

Johnny, everything you say is stupid! I suppose I can't really blame you for your shortcomings because you have no free will, but I must admit it's tempting.

[john9blue]

Johnny, everything you say is stupid!

this is a very good point and makes perfect sense.

[Gillipig]

They will never return my favors anyway, so why spend money on them when they won't give me anything in return? Isn't that just a bad investment? I get the point with helping your neighbors and so on but these people will never give me anything. And if I'm in it to feel better about myself, why not give money to someone poor nearby, who can praise my name, hug me and thank me for my incredible kindness? Giving money to Africans is just pointless, most of the money you give won't arrive to the people you intended anyway.

Your last argument.. that it doesn't go to the people intended, is the ONLY legitimate one in your whole diatribe.

Aside from the morality, most of us do feel we have some obligation to help others, if we ignore other people, they tend to rise up and become our enemies. Its much cheaper to send food, people to train in agricultural methods and such, than to send armies.

You mean they will return my favors? You mean they will be able to hug me and personally thank me for helping them? You just said I was wrong not why I was wrong. I can say you are wrong without stating why too. You're wrong!! Damn it, I guess it takes a certain mentality to do that sort of illogical thing because I actually justified why you're wrong.

if we ignore other people, they tend to rise up and become our enemies. Its much cheaper to send food, people to train in agricultural methods and such, than to send armies.

Name one war that ended up hurting westerners that you think could've been prevented by friendly westerners donating money.

[macbone]

Why should we help the poor in Africa? This is a really good question, actually, and has several different parts to it.

Why should we help? Was Thoreau correct when he argued the best way to help others is to help ourselves? Or is that ultimately a selfish argument?

Why should we help the poor? What benefits are involved in helping a poor person? Who benefits? Probably not us, unless you count warm, fuzzy feelings. Should we make choices based on feelings?

How does a poor African woman benefit if I donate so that she can, say, buy a goat? Does this action have any tangible benefit to anyone? Would it be better for me to take $20 and, say, buy a new Uncle Scrooge hardback comic (something that will give both myself and my kids hours of happiness), or give it to this woman I've never even met so that she can buy a goat? What can she do with that goat? Does it matter that she can provide for herself and her family with a goat?

Why should we help the poor in Africa? I'm an American living in Hong Kong. There's probably very little tangible benefit to me and my family if I buy this woman I'll never meet a goat. What about the refugees here in Hong Kong who aren't allowed to work until their status is resolved? Would it be better to give my $20 to a refugee family so that they can buy food for their family?

Who is more important? Ourselves? Our family? Our friends? Our community? Our country? Or others we have never met and may never hear from?

Giving money away to others seems to not be in my own self-interests. I gain no benefit, other than perhaps a smile and a thank you, or a card, or a photograph.

What's more important, me or other people? What's more important, my buying an Uncle Scrooge comic, or this woman I don't know buying a goat for her family?

I think Woodruff posted the story of Chuck Keener here a couple of weeks ago. Here's a guy who could be worth billions, and he instead works as hard as he can to give it all away to places like Ireland and Africa and Vietnam. His goal is to die, having given away all his wealth during his life.

Here's the Forbes article on him from last year: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenberto ... -go-broke/

What is most important in life? Ourselves? Others? Something else?

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm saying he doesn't test the soundness of his argument. Neither do his adherents. They rely on implied and presumably true premises (e.g. the aid will get there, the aid on net will help, etc.).

In short, good intentions don't always lead to good outcomes. And, there's systemic/fundamental problems which donating to foreign countries does not overcome but does reinforce, which is counterproductive. Causing more harm then signals to the idiots well-intentioned that even more help is needed, so they'll feel inclined to 'help' more. It's a dumb cycle, from which Singer-esque philosophy doesn't lead us.

Also, Singer contradicted his own position. He helped his mother instead of helping those worse off (something about his failing to stick to that lesser evil principle--whatever it was. It went something like this: you shouldn't donate to those within your country, but instead to those who are in more dire straits, e.g. people in Africa). To be consistent, one would have to drop everything, ignore friends and family, and start being essentially a slave for others who are worse off. (It's not a good philosophy; even the Buddhists overcame this problem without the need of constructing valid arguments, unknown in soundness).

good points, but why single out singer? pretty much everybody does this stuff. if anything in philosophy didn't rely on "implied and presumably true premises" then it would be some other type of science instead.

Because Singer was mentioned, and I don't like what his kind of reasoning has done with the world.

Sure, many philosophies suffer from the same problems, and very few are willing to admit it.

People need to admit the shortcomings of such philosophies, and then simply shelf them until the science can amplify the soundness of their arguments. ('Course, people don't do that, neither do many of the eager philosophers, so <shrugs>).

Nietzsche talks about this in his Beyond Good and Evil, if you're interested. Get the Kaufman version.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why should we help the poor in Africa? This is a really good question, actually, and has several different parts to it.

Why should we help? Was Thoreau correct when he argued the best way to help others is to help ourselves? Or is that ultimately a selfish argument?

Why should we help the poor? What benefits are involved in helping a poor person? Who benefits? Probably not us, unless you count warm, fuzzy feelings. Should we make choices based on feelings?

How does a poor African woman benefit if I donate so that she can, say, buy a goat? Does this action have any tangible benefit to anyone? Would it be better for me to take $20 and, say, buy a new Uncle Scrooge hardback comic (something that will give both myself and my kids hours of happiness), or give it to this woman I've never even met so that she can buy a goat? What can she do with that goat? Does it matter that she can provide for herself and her family with a goat?

Why should we help the poor in Africa? I'm an American living in Hong Kong. There's probably very little tangible benefit to me and my family if I buy this woman I'll never meet a goat. What about the refugees here in Hong Kong who aren't allowed to work until their status is resolved? Would it be better to give my $20 to a refugee family so that they can buy food for their family?

Who is more important? Ourselves? Our family? Our friends? Our community? Our country? Or others we have never met and may never hear from?

Giving money away to others seems to not be in my own self-interests. I gain no benefit, other than perhaps a smile and a thank you, or a card, or a photograph.

What's more important, me or other people? What's more important, my buying an Uncle Scrooge comic, or this woman I don't know buying a goat for her family?

I think Woodruff posted the story of Chuck Keener here a couple of weeks ago. Here's a guy who could be worth billions, and he instead works as hard as he can to give it all away to places like Ireland and Africa and Vietnam. His goal is to die, having given away all his wealth during his life.

Here's the Forbes article on him from last year: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenberto ... -go-broke/

What is most important in life? Ourselves? Others? Something else?

You know what helps the poor in Africa? Lifting the US import tariffs and quotas on African agricultural products, and then buying their products. Trade leads to prosperity yet it's hampered, while really dumb foreign 'aid' programs and well-intentioned donations reinforce the systemic problems of those countries.

Questions of self-interest v. public interest seem to overlook this. Even if one is "self-interested" (e.g. by buying grain from Ghana), they still help those producers (thus help some requirement for the "public interest"). In short, that's what Adam Smith's Invisible Hand metaphor is about.

[mordigan]

has anyone asked these people if they want rescuing? not everyone thinks they need money to be happy

[PLAYER57832]

They will never return my favors anyway, so why spend money on them when they won't give me anything in return? Isn't that just a bad investment? I get the point with helping your neighbors and so on but these people will never give me anything. And if I'm in it to feel better about myself, why not give money to someone poor nearby, who can praise my name, hug me and thank me for my incredible kindness? Giving money to Africans is just pointless, most of the money you give won't arrive to the people you intended anyway.

Your last argument.. that it doesn't go to the people intended, is the ONLY legitimate one in your whole diatribe.

Aside from the morality, most of us do feel we have some obligation to help others, if we ignore other people, they tend to rise up and become our enemies. Its much cheaper to send food, people to train in agricultural methods and such, than to send armies.

You mean they will return my favors? You mean they will be able to hug me and personally thank me for helping them? You just said I was wrong not why I was wrong. I can say you are wrong without stating why too. You're wrong!! Damn it, I guess it takes a certain mentality to do that sort of illogical thing because I actually justified why you're wrong.

No, I mean that people unable to feed and educate their kids may/do find sending them to radical training camps, where at least hey will eat and hopefully get some education, reasonable.
Or didn't you know that is how Hammas really got its start.. by helping widows and orphans? Many moderate Islamists wound up attracted to the group because it actually offered tangible things, not just empty promises. Desperate people take desperate measures.

Well fed, comfortable people are far less likely to turn terrorist.. though as history has shown us, they can, too under the right conditions.

if we ignore other people, they tend to rise up and become our enemies. Its much cheaper to send food, people to train in agricultural methods and such, than to send armies.

Name one war that ended up hurting westerners that you think could've been prevented by friendly westerners donating money.

Whoa.. never said JUST plop down money. How it is delivered and what is delivered matters a great deal! Still, money is required to feed people, pay for teachers, etc. You do have to pay attention to how aid is delivered, whether it is abroad or at home. The point is just that aid for people overseas who truly do need it is an effective means of diplomacy. Sadly, too often it gets abused, (particularly a lot of US government aid).. but those are other topics.

[john9blue]

The point is just that aid for people overseas who truly do need it is an effective means of diplomacy. Sadly, too often it gets abused, (particularly a lot of US government aid).. but those are other topics.

abuse like... corruption abuse? elaborate/link?

[BigBallinStalin]

The point is just that aid for people overseas who truly do need it is an effective means of diplomacy. Sadly, too often it gets abused, (particularly a lot of US government aid).. but those are other topics.

abuse like... corruption abuse? elaborate/link?

White Man's Burden is a good start.

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0143038826

[mordigan]

overseas aid is just a new whip for the western powers to crack over their old colonies. put them on the bottle and then threaten to take it away unless they do as you say. it's the same thing that parents do to their kids by giving them an allowance. the power structures use their financial clout to force those further down the food chain into doing things their way.

it's basically the same as the fat old man who forces a prostitute to lick his ass hole in return for a wad of cash. it's degrading and it's sick.