Why Charity Should Be Abolished

Actually no, just screwing with Kali.

You should put a question mark at the end man. Once you do that you can be like, "I don't actually believe this statement, I'm just swaying the possibility." Works with everything and still has the shock.

That is perfectly acceptable and encouraged.

I was only comparing them in the sense that right now conventional theory as I've read it is that neither Cancer nor viruses can be completely removed from the body barring (in theory) complete replacement of every organ and system in that body which would obviously mean death. It is the same with Crohn's Disease (which my dad has) and the like.

You are right of course. Maybe one day it CAN happen, but for now theory holds that there is no way. Going off on a side track here it would be cool to have the sort of thing that the Cylons have in Battlestar Galactica, where if a Cylon dies their consciousness is transferred to a new body. Of course, Cylons are living machines so....

You really are a fucked up person aren't you? Are you serious? Can you really have so little emotion that you would condemn people you have never met to death simply because they were born into a society where they currently can't be productive? The solution is to fix their situation and help them help themselves, not kill them.

While I don't agree with Kali's sentiment, I don't agree with yours either Mosh. The solution isn't to fix their situation, or worse yet, help them help themselves. The solution is the change the system that causes the situation in the first place. Anything else, (as Zizek argues in the video) is just hypocrisy.

It is important to note here, that Orville and Wilbur Wright, who are arguably the first to achieve human flight for a prolonged period of time, invented the airplane without millions and millions in donations and an enormous aeronautical industry. They were relatively poor inventors and developed the technology in their own home. The point here is that the the cure for cancer, if it is possible, will most likely come in a similar fashion.

The important thing to note here is that this concept of a 'cure for cancer' is subverted by the pharmaceutical industry to have patients dependent on chemical therapy while at the same time stifling innovation and development of Cancer research by creating strong patent laws to protect their ideas from others who may (or may not) profit from them. The idea does not follow the system, the system (should the old one allow it to do so) follows the idea.

I don't think its the system that's causing it. At least not in Africa. In Asia and South America, capitalism is more to blame, but still isn't the only problem. However, in Africa most of these places live off of what they can grow and do not sell to any others. Whereas in crowded cities facing urban crisis (such as Rio) you are more likely to starve because its not like you can grow anything, and neither can anyone else. Anyways, there is no system causing it. Such situations are caused by overcrowding and urban planning, or war, droughts, dictators, etc.

I am not condemning anyone to death. They will die without my interference, and they will die with it. I don't have an incentive to interfere and prolong their miserable lives, but I do have one not to. In any case, I'm not responsible (nor is my country or anyone living in it) for their security. I do not have the burden of their lives resting on my shoulders, nor do I wish to assume it.

Killing them is ridiculous. As I said, that's unnecessary, would no doubt be unpopular, and is actually counterproductive. We do not owe these people or their countries anything. The very idea that we could potentially owe them anything is preposterous.

I've seen your other comments on Africa, as well as the unabashed imperialism and ethnocentrism contained within. You think like a child, and that's why you think that it's not only necessary, but right, to impose your will on the rest of the world. Well I'll be having none of it. Stop assuming you're right about anything, because you're not. Your hubris is mind-boggling and your idealism is physically upsetting.

Well there was that whole business in the last two centuries where we subjugated them all and stunted their growth, granting them independence by demarcating arbitrary borders that held very little relation to the populations actually living there, and leaving cack-handed lazy excuses for provisional governments in our wake begging to be overthrown by a plethora of bloodthirsty dictators.

But heaven forbid we do something to aid in the long process of correcting the damage it caused.

The hell "we" did. In the first place, what someone's ancestors did to someone else's ancestors has no impact on how either of them should interact with each other. Second, there are winners and losers in history. That's just a material reality. Winners take the spoils and losers are typically subjugated for their failures. Just or not, that's the order of things, and it's not part of any one of our responsibility.

In any case, history as an argument for policy has never made much sense, and in this instance does not provide any sort of counter to the argument I or others have presented.

Easy solution: move to a country where medical treatment is free, like mine....

Are you insane? You would have us throw away morality and decency in favor of some fucked up realist bullshit? In the case of most third world countries, the people of those countries are in no way to blame for the subjugation of their ancestors to to their ancestors "failures". They are in "the third world" because of imperialism, for the "failures" of the victors, not the defeated. Countries like Anglo Egypt-Soudan were not created along ethnic or cultural boundaries, they were founded, rather, on lines "carved out" by the Imperial powers (in this case the U.K.) grouping together Islamic Egyptians ans Sudanese, Nubians, and Sub-Saharan, mostly christian Africans. Cultural strife coupled with Poorly functioning monarchies, dictatorships, and coup after coup, and you can't help bit realize that the people of Egypt and the Sudan did not bring this hell upon themselves.

@Jack118 - I don't know if you've debated with Kali before but as far as he's concerned, "decency" is a dirty word.

I said nothing of responsibility. Check your reading comprehension, Kali. Regardless it's well within our power to help repair this damage, and there's no reason not to, aside from infantile selfishness. Winners take the spoils and losers are typically subjugated for their failures, huh? Well it's a good thing not everyone thinks that way, else Germany would probably still be in ruins to this day following WW2. We can stand to benefit a lot from a healthy, functioning and growing Africa, but you don't get returns without an investment.

Decency is a dirty word, holy shit, I'm actually laughing out loud.

Are you a child? You're certainly behaving like one.

Yes, excuse me for sticking to reality. I really should indulge in fantasy and idealism more. That's guaranteed to get workable answers to the problems we face.

Does that matter at all? Who cares if they are the ones responsible for the conditions they're in? We have no obligation to aid them.

That's nonsensical, which is why you need to put quotation marks around the word "failures". You recognize, at least linguistically, the absurdity of that statement, and yet you make it in favor of your argument. That's just stupid.

How dreadfully irrelevant.

That's simply untrue. I just don't think it's worth anything as an argument. I'm no more convinced by your opinion on the "morality" of a decision than I am by the friendly Spy's disguise.

Oh spare me. You respond directly to my statement that we don't owe them anything, that we're devoid of obligation and responsibility to these people or their nations, with: "Well there was..." The implication is painstakingly obvious, and in fact (barring excruciatingly minor lexical changes), it barely avoids being stated directly. Maybe you don't like the word responsibility, or maybe you were just trying to be clever about it, but the fact is that you responded directly to the statements I made regarding our lack of responsibility.

I think there's a hell of a lot more reason than that. For starters, the OP of this thread. Obviously I disagree with the notion that charity should be abolished on the grounds that it prevents "real" solutions, but there's no doubt that we're applying a band-aid to a gunshot victim with AIDS. Even the sensible negative utilitarians, Malthusians, and anti-natalists could come up with a billion reasons to avoid "helping".

Are you questioning the accuracy of that statement? If so, I can tell you that empiricism is not on your side, to say the least.

Germany's post-war recovery was not a byproduct of kindness or goodwill, and to claim that it was is childishly naive.

I won't argue with you. I never said I was opposed to the development of Africa. However, the idea that we need to "right wrongs", or that we have any sort of obligation towards the people and countries of Africa is preposterous. And in any case, there's no doubt that in the status quo, there really aren't better candidates for natural death checks on human population.

Please, I'm trying to argue.

These sentences show a complete lack of understanding of the concept of realism.

Well, for starters, I care about the fact that the approximately 1 billion people who live in Africa live there under living standards we here in america would consider unbearable, and I would-and do- feel morally obligated to help those in need. Also, the fact that you would believe that we are not obligated to help other human beings shows a complete lack of your ability to accept the status quo and react to it in a way that would benefit others (the irony)

I don't see what is nonsensical about linking the poverty and political instability of certain third world countries to bad policy under former imperialist rulers. Now, if you'd care to be more specific in your accusations, maybe I could take you more seriously.

I was trying to provide an example of how The British Empire made bad decisions that led to a power vacuum after their leave that was filled with military dictatorships and ultimately caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands, of course, this all happened so far away, and it doesn't affect you, so why should you care, Kali, why should you care?

Is it standard argument for you to call your opponents insane, then? Can't say that really counters the claim I made.

I'm confident I have a much firmer grasp of of the concept of realism than you do. Political, philosophical, or otherwise, I have yet to see a worthwhile argument against realism, and your lack of a response is nothing new.

Good for you. Then do. As I said, I'm not opposed to charity, nor am I opposed to foreign aid. What I am opposed to is the notion that we are obligated to provide any of these things. The simple fact is that we're not. For all you types like to talk about the evils of imperialism, it seems I never hear anything from you except that we need to "fix" the "problems" "we" created. In reality, you're just assuming the "white man's burden" under another name. It is not our job, nor is it our role, to intervene in the affairs of foreign nations. That said, if you can show me how distributing antiretroviral drugs in Botswana will make a worthwhile (positive) impact on US hegemony, then by all means, let the state coordinate that effort. However, all anyone has presented, with the exception of a one-off remark by Jingles, is "morality". That simply isn't good enough.

I'm not even sure that this statement is semantically permissible, let alone sensical. Obligation is, as I've said before several times now, a social construct. It does not actually exist. We cannot be beholden to it without actively taking up that burden. Obviously I understand what obligation means within the context of the society I live in, but I reject the notion that obligation impacts me as a person or in any way has the power to influence my thoughts or actions. In other words, I understand and live with the semantic concept of obligation, but I both reject it and reject the idea that obligation can exist ontologically. Even within the framework of obligation as an active force, I obviously don't agree with the idea that we are in any way obligated to help these people.

You, on the other hand, don't even question the notion of obligation, and live with an undeserved burden of guilt and the accompanying self-righteousness about "problems" you had not part in creating. Further, you express a desire to force your will, and your burdens, onto the rest of us. I simply won't be having any of that. Take your idealism and "morality" elsewhere, or else recognize that you are not the sole possessor of what's right and good.

My problem wasn't with your boring and trite connections, it was with the idea that these things were at all failures of the victors. As victors, they should not and did not care for the losers. In no way could you consider their partitioning of the land and resources, or the exploitation of both of these, as a failure. You obviously recognized this, at least linguistically, because you understood that the word "failures" was improper in that context. It's simply wrong to say that they failed in their mission. What's really going on is that you have a problem with their mission. That's fine, but subverting the truth to paint it in an unnecessarily negative light is stooping to a disgustingly low argumentative level. Of course, I really can't expect much else from someone who calls his opponent insane at first chance.

Well, for one, indeed, why the hell should I? You haven't given me one iota of a reason to. More importantly, your exposition was incredibly dull and unmistakably high school. Please get a bit more of an education before you decide to mount an ideological or moral high horse and go crusading against the evils of the internet.

Whether we are obligated to give to charity is an entirely different matter to whether we should give to charity. Some may feel an obligation to give to charity, but I wouldn't say everyone does, or should have to.

No, and I can't say that railing on about your wisdom whilst acting arrogant helps counter claims I make either, can you drop this?

You appeared to be talking about reality, not realism.
But since you have a "much firmer grasp of the concept" then I will not bother you about it.

I believe the problem here is that you are viewing your personal opinion as "the simple fact", and until you stop beleiving that you are inherently right, I see no point in continuing this debate.

It would appear as if you are selfish, and have no emotion. You seem to at least recognize that 'we' committed a wrong, but are in no way responsible for it, and that because an act of kindness would not benefit us as much as it would the recipient, that it is not in our best interests.

Yes, yes; you forfeit.

No, I just couldn't drill through your thick head.