[Guest]

I touched on the subject of charity in another recent topic, and although I spoke against charity there, I don't wish to do so here, but I'd like to explore the morality behind it.

Here's a hypothetical situation:

You see a news report on TV about some disaster in a far-off country. There is an appeal for people to donate money to save lives. Let's say every 50€ (substitute amount and currency of your choosing) you give will save someone's life. What do you do?

If you donate 50€ you have the comfort of knowing you have saved a life. But perhaps the nagging realisation that you could have saved two lives for 100€ but chose not to because you were so tight-fisted you'd rather let the second person die than stump up the extra cash.

OK, so why not save two lives for 100€? Ten for 500€? Where do you stop? Let's say you could get a loan for 50,000€ though unfortunately you have no way of paying it back so you'll be creating a heap of financial trouble for yourself. Surely it's worth it for the 1000 lives you would save?

The situation isn't so hypothetical really, we sometimes see appeals on TV where a similar ratio of money spent to lives saved is on offer. Somehow we manage to decide how much (if anything) is the right amount to donate.

What I'd like to know is: How do you do it? Think back to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, or another recent humanitarian disaster. Did you donate money to help the victims? How much? If you believe there was a moral imperative to do so, why didn't you donate more? Do you feel guilty about having consumer goods you don't really need (like the computer you're sitting in front of*) when the money that bought them could have saved more lives?

I'm genuinely trying to get people's opinions here, not catch you out. Like Jesus says "Let he who doesn't live in a glass house cast the first stone"

* Apologies to those using the computer at work - you are truly righteous.

[peace*out]

I touched on the subject of charity in another recent topic, and although I spoke against charity there, I don't wish to do so here, but I'd like to explore the morality behind it.

Here's a hypothetical situation:

You see a news report on TV about some disaster in a far-off country. There is an appeal for people to donate money to save lives. Let's say every 50€ (substitute amount and currency of your choosing) you give will save someone's life. What do you do?

If you donate 50€ you have the comfort of knowing you have saved a life. But perhaps the nagging realisation that you could have saved two lives for 100€ but chose not to because you were so tight-fisted you'd rather let the second person die than stump up the extra cash.

OK, so why not save two lives for 100€? Ten for 500€? Where do you stop? Let's say you could get a loan for 50,000€ though unfortunately you have no way of paying it back so you'll be creating a heap of financial trouble for yourself. Surely it's worth it for the 1000 lives you would save?

****What I'd like to know is: How do you do it? Think back to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, or another recent humanitarian disaster. Did you donate money to help the victims? How much? If you believe there was a moral imperative to do so, why didn't you donate more? Do you feel guilty about having consumer goods you don't really need (like the computer you're sitting in front of*) when the money that bought them could have saved more lives?

Good post! I'm sorry i didn't donate - im just a kid! but that is a good point. I do know my family didn't pass it by though. We tried to help. My dad wrote a letter to out state about the tsunami (did i spell it wrong?) Anyways, thats a good point. save lives but don't get your own in trouble.

Edited August 31, 2008 by peace*out