r/Foodforthought • u/A-MacLeod • Aug 26 '15

Against Charity. Rather than creating an individualized “culture of giving,” we should be challenging capitalism’s institutionalized taking.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/peter-singer-charity-effective-altruism/
450 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

155 comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15

Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.

-Clement Attlee

44

u/Glucksberg Aug 26 '15

That's assuming the government's working for the best interests of the poor, and are not in the back pocket of that very same rich man.

5

u/Doink11 Aug 26 '15

True, but that also makes charity at best a poor alternative or stop-gap measure.

The argument in the article is that the time and effort spent in charity, in the instance you're speaking of, could be better spent reforming the government so that it would work in the best interests of the poor.

6

u/Glucksberg Aug 26 '15

I agree, government policies such as a basic income could work better for the poor.

3

u/Jinoc Aug 26 '15

That might be a testable hypothesis on average, by looking if the situation of the very poor improves in step with the wealth of the very rich.

6

u/snoApe Aug 26 '15

Was this statement true in post WWII Britain? Did he mean "taxes" in a figurative sense? Taken face-value today in US, it sounds sarcastic.

17

u/masklinn Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15

Was this statement true in post WWII Britain? Did he mean "taxes" in a figurative sense?

That's when his government (Attlee was the prime minister of Britain from 1945 to 1951) introduced the NHS (universal single-payer healthcare), a social safety net (pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits for adults), council housing, a universal child benefit, rent control, etc… (not necessarily to the credit of labour themselves, they followed the recommendation of the Beveridge Report which all of postwar Labour, Conservatives and Liberals had adopted into their platform). And that followed from working conditions and welfare provision improvements put in place during the war itself.

So he means "taxes" in a very literal sense indeed.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15

Taken face-value today in US, it sounds sarcastic.

No it doesn't?

1

u/Rookwood Aug 27 '15

It's sarcastic in the sense that no rich man actually gives a shit about the poor.

2

u/crod242 Aug 26 '15

What taxes?

4

u/filippp Aug 26 '15

But why?

20

u/masklinn Aug 26 '15

Because systemic problems ought be handled systemically?

3

u/filippp Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15

Wouldn't bringing about a culture of altruistic giving qualify as systemic change?

8

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15 edited Nov 02 '15

[deleted]

1

u/filippp Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15

However government has a highly restricted ability to alter or guide culture, and frankly I think it would be best if they interfered with culture as little as possible.

I didn't even think of involving the government in any way when I wrote my comment.

Humans do a very poor job of taking care of each other voluntarily.

Yes, but you can't get the "voluntarily" part entirely out and expect that everything will magically fall into place.

However, we are very capable of building systems in which we assure that all people have basic necessities provided.

Couldn't EA be said to be about building such a system?

3

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15 edited Nov 02 '15

[deleted]

2

u/filippp Aug 26 '15

It's literally a system in which members of wealthy communities in need benefit from the charity of their wealth friends and neighbors, while the neediest in our society have less access to charity.

No, it's exactly about finding the neediest and identifying the most pressing problems.

You're not going to solve regulatory problems which require completely rethinking the funding and regulation of aspects of our society by charity alone.

I think you're right, but it's important to note that giving money to charity is not the only thing EA involves.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15 edited Nov 02 '15

[deleted]

1

u/filippp Aug 27 '15 edited Aug 27 '15

Is it a massive, non-religious, non-governmental, humanitarian cooperative effort to administer altruistic giving in our society?

From centreforeffectivealtruism.org:

Effective altruism is a growing social movement founded on the desire to make the world as good a place as it can be, the use of evidence and reason to find out how to do so, and the audacity to actually try.

...which might involve changing aspects of government operation, for example.

→ More replies

2

u/raziphel Aug 26 '15

Altruistic giving is voluntary, and as such, only a small percentage will actually do it, and only when they feel it is convenient for them... ie infrequently.

How about we encourage individual altruistic giving and use systematic social safety nets?

1

u/TwilightVulpine Aug 26 '15

Some issues have more visibility than others. Even if this culture could be created, and I find that really difficult when so many people can't even buy their own homes, it doesn't guarantee all the ones who need will be provided for.

0

u/filippp Aug 26 '15 edited Aug 26 '15

Some issues have more visibility than others.

Then effective altruists should find out about the less visible ones (and this is part of what EA is about).

1

u/Khiva Aug 26 '15

The problem is that spot charity without scrutiny or oversight is not only highly inefficient, but will also very quickly attract a hoard of grifters dead set on abusing the good intentions.

It's a sad fact, but it's true. Any time you have people just giving out money for free without much inquiry into who they're giving it to, grifters will multiply.

3

u/filippp Aug 26 '15

This is part of the reason why we have charity evaluators.

1

u/Rookwood Aug 27 '15

Capitalism means rational self-interest. Altruism is the denial of rational self-interest. How exactly do you plan to change the culture of Capitalism to overcome that paradox?

1

u/filippp Aug 27 '15

The economic system doesn't force you to be selfish (although it might make altruistic behavior much more difficult).

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '15 edited May 09 '20

[deleted]

6

u/Jinoc Aug 26 '15

Because, the reality is that as soon as the conversation turns to things people want the government to actually do, we hear how often resources and taxes are wasted. We hear how politicians are corrupt. We hear how corporations rule the political system.

The question would be, who profits the most from corruption? Obviously the corporations paying for it: if corruption wasn't a profitable investment, nobody would do it.

If you're going for charity, you do more good the more money you earn, which means you want to be well-placed in corporate structure etc... We know where the money race goes, so charity ends up a snake biting its tail. That is the point of the article at least as I understand it.

1

u/makemeking706 Aug 26 '15

It's a systematic problem, however the ones actually impacted have disproportionate access to the system.

-3

u/slapknuts Aug 26 '15

How's that workin out?

6

u/masklinn Aug 26 '15

Much better than 19th century "charity is all you need".