This kind of thinking occurs to most people by the time they are teenagers. For some it's a pathway to radical politics. For others it's a retreat into denial and the status quo.

Whether we are morally obligated or not to donate, this is not the solution for countries like Bangladesh. The problem is deeper and more complex than just giving them loans or food supply. They are failed nations, and we should start to help to establish a solid structure to build a rigorous state. A donation would help temporarily, but not in the long term.

Is it that people do not care, do not know or do not want to do anything about it? — FreeEmotion

Mostly, it is that it seems far away, and not quite real, and people are immersed in their own sets of concerns/pressures, and are themselves just trying their best to feel okay. Most are struggling on some level. And even if it is the case that people can send money to organizations that can effectively help, people feel helpless. When you just send money somewhere, it is hard to see that it actually does some good.

People also, I think, sadly, though they probably won't admit it to themselves, are a little bit glad to see bad things happening elsewhere, to other people, far away where it can't touch them. Comparatively, it makes them feel a little better about their own lot. It's like the Tool song: Vicarious

Surely you've watched something terrible on the news with someone else and have said something along the lines of, "That's terrible!", while at the same time feeling a subtle lift, a little thrill that you wouldn't dare acknowledge. And then you went about your day, cracked a beer, or whatever. I bet we've all done it.

We even get something, I think, out of looking at the bad things in the world and watching ourselves being concerned about it. It can be a kind of little performance we do for ourselves, so that we might consider ourselves good people, worthy of love ourselves. I remember Victor Frankl talking about this, how we cry for others and then cry a little extra for ourselves, while patting ourselves on the back for being such compassionate people. We probably also unconsciously perform our caring for others, so that they might see us as good people.

It's also a little hard to take it all in, to really appreciate what's going on around the world. It's hard to carry the weight of the world's suffering on your shoulders. Naturally, much of the time, we just want to shut it all out and pretend that this cute puppy in front of us is all there is.

For me, in my darker moments, there is also sometimes just the feeling that this is just how the world is. There is just a sense of looking at all the suffering out there, seeing it also in my own life in various forms, and just feeling depressed, just wanting to go to sleep and not see it anymore. There is a paralysis. Addressing it can seem like trying to mop up the ocean.

People are also suspicious, sometimes for bad reasons, sometimes for good reasons, of anyone asking for money. Even if they want to help, they aren't sure how best to do so or even how to find out how to best help. And they don't have a lot of spare time.

Such apathy is useless imo. I am not suggesting you are personally apathetic, as you have only typed about the way that many people do initially react to bad news stories.

Each of us can help change things. No-one is powerless, we can vote, we can protest, we can donate, we can pressurise, we can organise and unite in common cause, we can communicate/debate/discuss with each other, even on places like TPF. We can each do much, much more than say 'that's terrible' and feel secretly satisfied that what you saw in the news is not currently happening to you. Those who decide to become nihilistic, depressed, hermitical, pessimists, certainly won't change anything for the better for anyone, including themselves.
If you don't eat and drink, when others are starving and dying of hunger, thirst or any other cause, then you will be too busy dying yourself, to help stop them from dying.

It's like the Tool song: Vicarious — petrichor

And much more popular and clear -- listen to Bono's words

Here is a group I am a member of, which is well organised, and is doing a better form of politics than most, imo. It's only under 3 mins long and I suggest it, not as any kind of recommendation of the group, but merely just as an example of people working in common cause, to help (at least in my opinion) to improve the human experience.


I will pick a mod at random! Say @Baden, (just because I don't want to always burden Jamal!),
just to ask if posting such a wee vid is ok in the context I am using it here? If not then I will understand its removal. I don't want it to seem like I am on a recruitment drive, for any political group, including those very few, I am a member of.

They are failed nations, and we should start to help to establish a solid structure to build a rigorous state. — javi2541997

On what basis? No 'nation' present in Africa, the Americas or Oceania is a natural society: all the borders have been drawn around displaced and dispossessed peoples by colonial powers who had no concern for the natives' relation to the land or one another. Of course such artificial states fail, and expecting the same colonizers to rebuild them into solid national structures is unrealistic, to say the least.

Self-determination and independent governance for individual ethnic groups would be a start - at least in ending the armed conflicts. However, the allocation of territory remains problematic, as the economics of the colonial and post-colonial periods has changed the landscape itself.

"We", by which posters usually mean prosperous western countries, on the government level have no diplomatic, strategic or financial interest in redistribution of land, resources, water rights, and certainly nothing to gain by intervention in foreign administrations. So, that's not going to happen until the UN assumes one-world government or hell freezes over, whichever comes last.

Individually, we can support organizations that make sensible contributions to local improvement: water, shelter, agricultural improvement, education, hunger relief, medical aid and micro loans. We can also vote for candidates who put forward benevolent and fair policies, instead of tax cuts and more military spending.

This kind of thinking occurs to most people by the time they are teenagers. — Tom Storm

Yes, children have an innate sense of justice, until it's beaten or bribed out of them.

It is a sensitive topic, because the notions of 'state' and 'nation' don't fit in some countries of Africa or Oceania, and I agree with you on this point. I tried to say that in some 'territories' of the world, the public administration fails in providing to their citizens the basic needs: water, food, education, safety, etc. And, giving them all of these needs freely, will not help them in the long run, because they will still live in a country where there are dictatorships, and they do not care about people. For a citizen from Senegal - for example - it is more urgent to fix the management of their society rather than giving them food or building their structures with our businesses. This only leads to low self-esteem amongst the African people.

I think the United Nations is not the solution either. It is a Western-like systematic structure which only roots for the USA or European values. I think that the future of Africa can be managed by the African Union. The problems of their continent being managed by themselves without the intervention of foreign nations, which are unknown about the real problems of Africa.

For a citizen from Senegal - for example - it is more urgent to fix the management of their society — javi2541997

Who? How? With what available instrument?
Military occupation and colonial governance? Redrawing the borders and patrolling the new ones with peacekeeping forces? How are the western countries doing all this even to hold an alliance among themselves long enough to accomplish it?
Meanwhile, people suffer and die and are persecuted.

I think that the future of Africa can be managed by the African Union. — javi2541997

Sound good. If it has the means to stop arms coming in from greedy westerners and easterners, advisors coming in from westerners and easterners (not forgetting China's keen interest) seeking political advantage, essential resources flowing out to western and eastern buyers. I dunno! Clear out all the Europeans, Americans and Asians, then blockade the whole continent and let them figure it out like they used to? We can't *gasp* do that! It contains oily bits near the top! And where do you put all the Afrikaners?
Is Hell getting any cooler yet?

:100:

I have to highlight that I see international help and collaboration as reliable while they try to fix their problems. What I say is we shouldn't be that involved in their territory because this would make a sense of colonialism. How can a country like Senegal manage its society independently? I do not know... I wish I had answers to these questions, but what I truly believe is that the United Nations is failing all over the African continent.

And where do you put all the Afrikaners? — Vera Mont

Why should they be removed from Africa? They can live together with the rest of the citizens, ethnics, tribes, people, etc.

Why should they be removed from Africa? They can live together with the rest of the citizens, ethnics, tribes, people, etc. — javi2541997

Isn't that how the killing usually begins? Lots of people object to living together with certain other people.
Everyone seems to be failing in Africa, except maybe itinerant medics.

Isn't that how the killing usually begins? Lots of people object to living together with certain other people. — Vera Mont

But why does this happen at all? It seems that you give up on the close up on the relationship between the Afrikaners and the original ethnics of Africa. It should not have to end badly.

But why does this happen at all? It seems that you give up on the close up on the relationship between the Afrikaners and the original ethnics of Africa. It should not have to end badly. — javi2541997

I agree - it should not. Individually and in small groups, humans can work out all kinds of problems. In large numbers, we're crazy and it so often does.

I think it is human nature that it is difficult to feel empathy in the abstract and distant versus the physical and personal. This high range empathy is difficult to achieve and sustain. People seem to be able to do it, but mostly only in short bursts. It reminds me of that saying "The tears of strangers are just water." That sounds like a cynical attitude, but it is more like an observation about human psychology. It is also what allows us to demonize the "other" and do horrible things to humans we've never met.

While charity is generally regarded as a moral virtue, I think calling donating a moral obligation goes too far.

There are several gripes I would have with that:

- How much should one donate? How often? To what causes?

- What if money can't solve the problem? Am I morally obligated to fly over there and start digging wells?

- What if I am a poor person living in a rich country? Am I obligated to donate? Or are people morally obligated to donate to me?

This idea of donating as a moral obligation raises way too much questions and makes little sense to me.


People aren't put on this Earth to make other people's problems their own, and it is generally a good thing that they don't, especially when it comes to problems they know little about.

I strongly believe in the idea that people should first 'get their own house in order', before moving on to other people's problems. The latter often becomes an excuse not to do the former, and as such few problems actually end up getting solved, the result being nothing but a misplaced sense of moral superiority.

If problems were easy to solve, people would have probably been able to solve them on their own. Hubris in this regard has a way of creating more problems, not less. So even when one is being charitable, one should be humble.

Lastly, I dislike the idea of donating money. Simply because sending money rarely solves problems, from both a practical and an economic point of view - it may even cause them. It feels more like an easy way to feel good about oneself, without actually doing much.
It becomes an excuse not to take on problems that are closer to home - problems which one might actually have a good understanding of and be able to solve.


All in all, I believe charity is a moral virtue, but it must be done wisely and humbly, and as such cannot simply be considered a 'moral obligation' - as something to be done without second thought.

Sometimes charity is paying one's lonely grandma a visit. Sometimes charity is telling someone a harsh truth. I don't think money has much to do with it.

How much should one donate? How often? To what causes? — Tzeentch

The RCC, when it had a monopoly on charitable collecting, had that covered. Tithes were set according the parishioner's income and the current cause was named by the priest.

Not everyone feels obligated to share his good fortune with those whom fate or humankind have treated unfairly. Those who do are able to decide how much they can afford to donate and choose the causes they considers most worthwhile, as well as most likely to make good use of it. Some people, consider it a kind of moral duty - something akin to a debt of honour - to give back when society has been generous to them. Some are aware enough of the larger world to realize that their material comfort came about at the expense of many other people's - perhaps not directly, but through accidents of birth, history and nationality.

What if money can't solve the problem? Am I morally obligated to fly over there and start digging wells? — Tzeentch

No. Just make up a bundle of clothes for the local thrift store or a bag of groceries for the food bank or drive a disabled person to their physiotherapy session.

What if I am a poor person living in a rich country? Am I obligated to donate? — Tzeentch

No, but many poor people do anyway. If you want people to donate to you directly, ask them - some might feel obligated.

People aren't put on this Earth to make other people's problems their own, and it is generally a good thing that they don't, especially when it comes to problems they know little about. — Tzeentch

Society's problems are everyone's problems. How it goes with eating cake when the people have no bread. It sometimes ends badly for the haves.

If problems were easy to solve, people would have probably been able to solve them on their own. — Tzeentch

Nobody's on their own. Problems don't just happen out of nowhere. Since people contribute to causing them for one another, they get better results when they co-operate on the solutions or, failing that, mitigation.

Some businesses and institutions make a serious effort to collect donations from their employees, but they can't legally force you to comply, any more than the church can.

Sudan has been a long disaster, humanitarian and otherwise. I'm not particularly optimistic.

The RCC, when it had a monopoly on charitable collecting, had that covered. Tithes were set according the parishioner's income and the current cause was named by the priest.

Not everyone feels obligated to share his good fortune with those whom fate or humankind have treated unfairly. Those who do are able to decide how much they can afford to donate and choose the causes they considers most worthwhile, as well as most likely to make good use of it. Some people, consider it a kind of moral duty - something akin to a debt of honour - to give back when society has been generous to them. Some are aware enough of the larger world to realize that their material comfort came about at the expense of many other people's - perhaps not directly, but through accidents of birth, history and nationality. — Vera Mont

No. Just make up a bundle of clothes for the local thrift store or a bag of groceries for the food bank or drive a disabled person to their physiotherapy session. — Vera Mont

No, but many poor people do anyway. If you want people to donate to you directly, ask them - some might feel obligated. — Vera Mont

I get that these are practical guidelines, but not quite the clear delineations one might expect when something is claimed to be a moral obligation.

A moral obligation means one ought to fulfill it always.

That becomes rather difficult without said delineations.

Society's problems are everyone's problems. — Vera Mont

I disagree. Societies don't have problems; people, individuals, have problems. Some problems are within one's power to solve, others not.

To take it upon oneself to solve everyone's problems, or the problems of abstract concepts like 'society', is foolish and an act of hubris. That's why much do-gooding ends up not helping anyone.

That isn't to say that charity cannot be good and moral. I believe it is a moral virtue. But sometimes (often?) it seems to turn into a crusade to solve 'the world's' problems while neglecting problems at home.

One doesn't need to travel to the third world to find misery. But many find it much easier to donate some cash to anonymous charities than to pay their lonely grandma a visit.

Most, if not all, problems are human problems, and require human solutions.

Arguing about charitable giving loses sight of the fact that by definition it is voluntary, that is free of moral obligation. If it was obligatory it wouldn't be a charity, it would be a tax.

Whether we are morally obligated or not to donate, this is not the solution for countries like Bangladesh. The problem is deeper and more complex than just giving them loans or food supply — javi2541997

I agree, however the reasons for failure need to be looked at separately. I think some reasons have been suggested.

Individually, we can support organizations that make sensible contributions to local improvement: water, shelter, agricultural improvement, education, hunger relief, medical aid and micro loans. We can also vote for candidates who put forward benevolent and fair policies, instead of tax cuts and more military spending. — Vera Mont

These are great ideas, but people are starving due to wars, and lack of giving. Is there something that can be done on to change the status quo?

A moral obligation means one ought to fulfill it always. — Tzeentch

If you feel that obligation, it does mean that. If you don't, you'd probably resent anyone trying to impose it on you. This is true of all moral strictures: unless you subscribe to the canon or ideology in which it is set out as law, you are not bound by them.

Societies don't have problems; people, individuals, have problems. Some problems are within one's power to solve, others not. — Tzeentch

I see. The 7-billion-islands school of social philosophy. In that case, moral standards do not apply to you, even though the legal ones still do.

That's why much do-gooding ends up not helping anyone. — Tzeentch

I have not seen this theory demonstrated.

But sometimes (often?) it seems to turn into a crusade to solve 'the world's' problems while neglecting problems at home. — Tzeentch

We can't all be everywhere, fighting every fight: we each choose our arena.

Most, if not all, problems are human problems, and require human solutions. — Tzeentch

Certainly. But in a monetized world, individuals can do very little without funding. You can volunteer to babysit for you next door neighbour or wash their windows. But if you grow vegetables for malnourished people in the inner city, how do you bring it to those people without transportation? Volunteers cannot develop vaccines or manufacture drugs, and there may not be local trees and vines to cut down to lash together a schoolhouse.

Arguing about charitable giving loses sight of the fact that by definition it is voluntary, that is free of moral obligation. If it was obligatory it wouldn't be a charity, it would be a tax. — LuckyR

Part of it is. If you believe you have done enough by paying your taxes, your obligation ends there.

These are great ideas, but people are starving due to wars, and lack of giving. Is there something that can be done on to change the status quo? — FreeEmotion

I doubt it, at this juncture. The world is daily more turbulent; the obscene profits of megabusiness keep sucking resources out of working people's reach; between climate and internecine conflict, more people keep being displaced and dispossessed. The need keeps growing, while the disposable income of compassionate people keeps shrinking.

I think it is called callousness, and is causing many many problems worldwide.

It's called government. Foreign aid is in the billions of dollars for most Western nations. Whenever the unfortunate ask for a dollar, you tell them the government has already confiscated your dollar for their benefit. Take it up with them.

The state is our collective organ of charity and good will, of peace of mind, and consequently, the source of individual inaction. So long have we relied on it for these purposes that we no longer need to be responsible for each other. There's your safety net; fall into it.

So long have we relied on it for these purposes that we no longer need to be responsible for each other. There's your safety net; fall into it. — NOS4A2

While not quite so dire as that, the situation is deteriorating.

The total amount of charitable giving fell by 3.4% last year to $499.3 billion — a 10.5% decrease when adjusted for inflation, Giving USA found.
Between the lines: Americans gave 1.7% of their personal disposable income to charity in 2022, the lowest level they had given since 1995.

However, volunteerism is alive and well:

Nearly 51% of the U.S. population age 16 and over, or 124.7 million people, informally helped their neighbors between September 2020 and 2021 at the height of the pandemic, according to the latest Volunteering and Civic Life in America research released today.
In response to a separate question, more than 23% of people in that age group, or 60.7 million, said they formally volunteered through an organization during the same period.

People haven't become entirely callous.

I doubt it, at this juncture. The world is daily more turbulent; the obscene profits of megabusiness keep sucking resources out of working people's reach; between climate and internecine conflict, more people keep being displaced and dispossessed. The need keeps growing, while the disposable income of compassionate people keeps shrinking. — Vera Mont

This is, I believe a good description of what is happening.

I want to look at this from a personal angle.

As children we are taught to share. Sometimes each child is given the identical toy in order to be 'fair'.
We are told not to throw away food, because of starving children somewhere.

After several decades of seeing terrorism, civil war, financial crises and lock-downs, with people (in the Global South at least) finding it very difficult to live day to day, due to rising costs and fewer opportunities, with a war in Ukraine and in Gaza, the suffering continues.

We - and I mean this loosely - about immediate family - can go through an entire holiday eating, drinking, visiting resorts and watching dolphins, without one word, one word, mind you, about the starving people of the world. Give lip service at least. Think about them. At least Elon Musk tried, and he says 'its not the money - there are wars...'.

I seem to be the only one thinking about this.

I have a challenge: put aside 1 cent every time you have a meal, for the poor.

https://www.wvi.org/newsroom/hunger-crisis/humanitarian-organisations-estimate-one-person-dying-hunger-every-four

9 million people die every year from hunger.

https://www.actionagainsthunger.org/the-hunger-crisis/world-hunger-facts/

Between now and tomorrow morning, 40,000 children will starve to death. The day after tomorrow, 40,000 more children will die, and so on throughout 1992. In a "world of plenty," the number of human beings dying or suffering from hunger, malnutrition, and hunger-related diseases is staggering. According to the World Bank, over 1 billion people—at least one quarter of the world's population—live in poverty. Over half of these people live in South Asia; most of the remainder in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia.

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more-focus-areas/resources/world-hunger-a-moral-response/

his kind of thinking occurs to most people by the time they are teenagers. For some it's a pathway to radical politics. For others it's a retreat into denial and the status quo. — Tom Storm

And for others, it's an opportunity to be sanctimonious.

And for others, it's an opportunity to be sanctimonious. — Ciceronianus

Providing the callous a reason to ignore their message.

Providing the callous a reason to ignore their message. — Vera Mont

A very sanctimonious response!

A very sanctimonious response! — Ciceronianus

A very predictable one.