Notre Dame- an example of altruism at its worst

[Red]

Not quite @Red, Randroids believe that spending your own money on whatever you want to spend it on is morally neutral. They don't care about people giving to charities, or donating money to a puppy torture factory; it's all the same to them.

I guess I got some bad information then?
I met like 3 Randroids in my life, and they all have said that altruism is in an of itself bad. Either I just made a mistake in mixing that in with their Randian beliefs, or they got Ayn Rand wrong.

I'll start a new thread on this if it gets into a big discussion, but don't Randroids think spending money on yourself is inherently moral? Or it differs from just spending money on what you want?

What they consider evil is the government taking your money (through tax) and then spending that money on charitable aims.

It seems as though I need to brush up on my Randian trivia.
Have you read Atlas Shrugged? I couldn't get through the first 10 pages, but I'd be willing to read the whole thing just so I can get a glimpse into the psyche of a Randroid.

[brimstoneSalad]

I guess I got some bad information then?
I met like 3 Randroids in my life, and they all have said that altruism is in an of itself bad. Either I just made a mistake in mixing that in with their Randian beliefs, or they got Ayn Rand wrong.

They believe that altruism as a moral system is wrong, but it's not wrong if you just feel like donating to charity because that's how you personally like to spend your money.

I'll start a new thread on this if it gets into a big discussion, but don't Randroids think spending money on yourself is inherently moral? Or it differs from just spending money on what you want?

It's just spending it how you want.

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? I couldn't get through the first 10 pages, but I'd be willing to read the whole thing just so I can get a glimpse into the psyche of a Randroid.

No, and personally I wouldn't waste my time. You can get more from writings directly about Randian Objectivism (from inside or outside the cult) than from narratives. With narratives you have to read into it and extract the moral conclusions, it's not as reliable (or as fast) as just reading those claims directly.

[teo123]

Are you trying to make the point that altruism is always ineffective?

No, I am saying that, given what I know, it seems that it is innefective or even counter-productive most of the time, and that it is therefore immoral. Sometimes it accidentally has good consequences, but that doesn't exactly justify it.

[brimstoneSalad]

Are you trying to make the point that altruism is always ineffective?

No, I am saying that, given what I know, it seems that it is innefective or even counter-productive most of the time, and that it is therefore immoral. Sometimes it accidentally has good consequences, but that doesn't exactly justify it.

People attempting altruism can be harmful if they do it in lieu of reducing personal harm (like donate to an animal charity *instead of* going vegan).

It's always important to reduce our personal harm footprint first and foremost, because we can not trust donating to charity to always do good and make up for that... and also because effectively paying other people to not do harm on your behalf is effectively a moral ponzi scheme.

BUT if you're already taking measures to reduce your own harm footprint, donating to a charity may range in effect from mostly neutral to good (and if you choose evidence based charities, that latter is more likely).

[Jebus]

Are you trying to make the point that altruism is always ineffective?

No, I am saying that, given what I know, it seems that it is innefective or even counter-productive most of the time, and that it is therefore immoral. Sometimes it accidentally has good consequences, but that doesn't exactly justify it.

It wouldn't be immoral if the intentions were good.

Writing that charity is counter-productive most of the time and that any positive consequences are accidental is a bit crazy. I think it may rarely have negative consequences. Such would include donating money to an addict who ends up spending the money on his/her addiction or to donate to a charity with criminal intent. However, these are rarities.

I think the following two options are much more common:

1. People donating to charities thinking all (or most) of the money they donated will go to those in need, whereas, in reality, most of the money go to the charity's overhead costs.

2. People donating to charities with an end goal that benefits either very few a lot (like the Make a Wish Foundation), or very many little (like the Notre Dame restructuring project) instead of choosing a charity that benefits very many very much (like the Humane Society).

@teo123 Here are a couple of personal questions for you:

Do you know of any efficient charities that bring positive consequences?

If so, do you donate any of your money to that charity?

[teo123]

Do you know of any efficient charities that bring positive consequences?

Well, no, I haven't studied it that much.

[Jamie in Chile]

Notre-Dame fire: Has too much money been given to rebuild it?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48039770

[Jebus]

Do you know of any efficient charities that bring positive consequences?

Well, no, I haven't studied it that much.

So this is entirely unimportant to you???

[brimstoneSalad]

Do you know of any efficient charities that bring positive consequences?

Well, no, I haven't studied it that much.

So this is entirely unimportant to you???

I think not, he seems to have a very strong opinion on the subject.

Are you insinuating that people should not form strong opinions on subjects they know nothing about? Or worse, that people should research things they ostensibly care about so as to have properly informed opinions? How dare you.

[gottabesaid]

Friends of mine made a donation to La fondation patrimoine to help with the rebuild of Notre Dame.They are a charity and as such the donation is tax deductible by 66%. So the french authorities overall only get a third of the amount net. Seems a bit daft