Not necessarily. It's possible to not care a whit about your fellow human beings and still want to give to charity.
For example: you donate to a homeless shelter so you, selfishly, don't have to see homeless people on the streets. You might not know them or care about them, you just know that *you* don't want to live in a place where you have to walk around them every day.
Earlier this year I lost a bet to someone. They wouldn't take the money but I still felt an obligation. I instead donated that amount to charity. i can't say I did it for charity sake, but from what I say was an ethical obligation under the spirit of the bet. This is clearly all an invention in my mind. I didn't do it for the other person; they may think I'm honorable for it but i don't think they thought otherwise before I did it, and I care not what they think about my actions. In the end I did it for myself because I felt it was what I should do. I can't say it made me feel good, but I do think it would have made me feel a little bad to not do something with funds I legitimately lost in the bet. I don't even recall if I did under their name or anonymously. I would say I did the right thing but I'd also say it wasn't a selfless thing.
Not necessarily. It's possible to not care a whit about your fellow human beings and still want to give to charity.
For example: you donate to a homeless shelter so you, selfishly, don't have to see homeless people on the streets. You might not know them or care about them, you just know that *you* don't want to live in a place where you have to walk around them every day.
I applaud Apple, Jobs and family for anonymous giving. Most celebrity giving seems like cheap advertising for personal gain, since getting their pictures in EW and People and like are a way to keep themselves in the public eye -- their bread and butter.
Donald Trump is a great example of a pathological liar and self-promoter acting differently from the sociopath he really is -- the Birther issues, demanding to see Obama's Harvard grades -- you know -- "Black's are generally inferior so it couldn't be that Obama is actually smart." He is certainly up near the top of my list of despicable human beings.
Indeed!
Giving owrselfs is already selfish ( you work hard for yr loved one to reach climax in bed, and it is to make you look great at her eyes, and for her not to dump you. It is selfish. NO?, But at least you gave yourself ), to trumpet it is shameful, at least.
I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted
I'm not one for giving to charity. Too much corruption and stealing and ineffective use of my hard-earned dough. Give someone your time, help, money or care and watch them light up. It's more direct.
Careful, I was called a witch for suggesting such things.
I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted. Just because you are donating openly or setting up charities it doesn't mean you are looking for accolades. The better move is to not care what others will ultimately think for against your motives and actions.
Wow, it's a tough call on this for me. Personally I find naming a foundation after yourself is pretty irksome. I hope that particular one doesn't become a dynasty. I can see some merit in SJ' approach plus it fits with his spiritual beliefs it seems to me.
I had a feeling you were special....too! Kudos to you.
Clean living and being selective (or lucky) with the partners we've chosen over the years was certainly not for nothing and quite virtuous, IMHO. Like my phlebotomist/hematologist told me on numerous donating occasions, being CMV free says a lot about someone. Although, that's not to say that those who carry the virus are necessarily 'dirty' people, so to speak. I'm not saying that at all.
I have a high platelet count so they have me on a schedule. NJ Blood Services wants me in as often as possible. I even have my local hospital call me up (basically on-call) to donate for special immuno-suppressed infant cases like HIV and cancer patients. While the nationwide rate for CMV positive is 80-85%, the NY/NJ Metro area has a rate closer to 95% so the clean blood pool is much smaller here, which makes me high in demand. NOTHING makes me feel better than having such an ability to help infants in desperate need for life-giving "clean" blood. I know for a fact that I have directly saved and/or prolonged the lives of many children.
NOTHING makes me feel better than having such an ability to help infants in desperate need for life-giving "clean" blood. I know for a fact that I have directly saved and/or prolonged the lives of many children.
On a couple occasions they've called me up or I've gone in to give platelets and they wanted me to give whole blood instead for a need they expressed was likely for infants. Not sure if they just say that because it would make the average person feel better over someone with AIDS or some other auto-immune issues, but it does feel good to know your blood is needed and uncommon.
I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted. Just because you are donating openly or setting up charities it doesn't mean you are looking for accolades. The better move is to not care what others will ultimately think for against your motives and actions.
Open giving will never accomplish as much good as anonymous giving because open giving is only good for the recipient, but never good for the giver.
Anonymous giving is good for the giver and receiver. Both become better off.
Open giving is narcissistic, it glorifies the giver. It teaches society narcissism, that you are only important if you are rich and powerful.
Anonymous giving teaches society that the plight of the troubled and needy is what is important (not the giver).
Open giving to coerce others into giving - teaches society that bullying others is proper (it is not).
Anonymous giving teaches society that bullies should be ignored.
But if you want to give anonymously because it make you feel more humble or makes you look more humble to the few people in your inner circle that know you're donating and/or you're afraid of what people might think if you gave sans anonymity isn't that letting your ego dictate your decision?
I think you're perhaps trying to put too fine a point on it.
Speaking for myself, what defines character is what you do (and who you are) when people are not looking -- not when they're looking.
I think you're perhaps trying to put too fine a point on it.
Speaking for myself, what defines character is what you do (and who you are) when people are not looking -- not when they're looking.
Another excellent example: Open giving promotes a superficial facade of good character, while anonymous giving improves the givers true character. And society learns from watching both, do we want to teach superficiality or true good character? I say we want folks to develop true good character, not a lie.
Another excellent example: Open giving promotes a superficial facade of good character, while anonymous giving improves the givers true character. And society learns from watching both, do we want to teach superficiality or true good character? I say we want folks to develop true good character, not a lie.
In the end, it all amounts to the same: people find out. Like people did, in this instance.
I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example....
One small caveat I'd like to add.
Without going into too much detail, those of us who are of a Christian persuasion subscribe to anonymous giving as being the preferred method, so that the giving does not confer either status or glory onto the person donating. Even if you're filthy rich, you give because you should, not because you'll get your name in the paper.
The anonymous aspect is why I admire Jobs a lot more than Gates when it comes to the subject (that and the nasty way in which Gates uses his foundation as a down-low marketing machine for Microsoft, but that's another discussion...)
Sounds like you have the definition of honor mixed up with "praise" or some such. Honorable deeds are NOT done so that one can feel good about himself. They are done because they're the right thing to do, plain and simple.
I spent an hour with Laurene the other day talking about education reform. She is smart..friendly...awesome. I think we can expect that they have been doing just what we'd hope, or will accomplish that soon enough.
Comments
Earlier this year I lost a bet to someone. They wouldn't take the money but I still felt an obligation. I instead donated that amount to charity. i can't say I did it for charity sake, but from what I say was an ethical obligation under the spirit of the bet. This is clearly all an invention in my mind. I didn't do it for the other person; they may think I'm honorable for it but i don't think they thought otherwise before I did it, and I care not what they think about my actions. In the end I did it for myself because I felt it was what I should do. I can't say it made me feel good, but I do think it would have made me feel a little bad to not do something with funds I legitimately lost in the bet. I don't even recall if I did under their name or anonymously. I would say I did the right thing but I'd also say it wasn't a selfless thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Not necessarily. It's possible to not care a whit about your fellow human beings and still want to give to charity.
For example: you donate to a homeless shelter so you, selfishly, don't have to see homeless people on the streets. You might not know them or care about them, you just know that *you* don't want to live in a place where you have to walk around them every day.
That is not a bad thing.
Is it?
And it is not selfish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
I applaud Apple, Jobs and family for anonymous giving. Most celebrity giving seems like cheap advertising for personal gain, since getting their pictures in EW and People and like are a way to keep themselves in the public eye -- their bread and butter.
Donald Trump is a great example of a pathological liar and self-promoter acting differently from the sociopath he really is -- the Birther issues, demanding to see Obama's Harvard grades -- you know -- "Black's are generally inferior so it couldn't be that Obama is actually smart." He is certainly up near the top of my list of despicable human beings.
Indeed!
Giving owrselfs is already selfish ( you work hard for yr loved one to reach climax in bed, and it is to make you look great at her eyes, and for her not to dump you. It is selfish. NO?, But at least you gave yourself ), to trumpet it is shameful, at least.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted
Interesting. Good point.
What are you talking about?
Learn how to read. I said nothing of the sort. I merely suggested giving of yourself is the hardest thing.
Careful, I was called a witch for suggesting such things.
Wow, it's a tough call on this for me. Personally I find naming a foundation after yourself is pretty irksome. I hope that particular one doesn't become a dynasty. I can see some merit in SJ' approach plus it fits with his spiritual beliefs it seems to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Hey', I'm CMV negative, too!
I had a feeling you were special....too!
Clean living and being selective (or lucky) with the partners we've chosen over the years was certainly not for nothing and quite virtuous, IMHO. Like my phlebotomist/hematologist told me on numerous donating occasions, being CMV free says a lot about someone. Although, that's not to say that those who carry the virus are necessarily 'dirty' people, so to speak. I'm not saying that at all.
I have a high platelet count so they have me on a schedule. NJ Blood Services wants me in as often as possible. I even have my local hospital call me up (basically on-call) to donate for special immuno-suppressed infant cases like HIV and cancer patients. While the nationwide rate for CMV positive is 80-85%, the NY/NJ Metro area has a rate closer to 95% so the clean blood pool is much smaller here, which makes me high in demand. NOTHING makes me feel better than having such an ability to help infants in desperate need for life-giving "clean" blood. I know for a fact that I have directly saved and/or prolonged the lives of many children.
On a couple occasions they've called me up or I've gone in to give platelets and they wanted me to give whole blood instead for a need they expressed was likely for infants. Not sure if they just say that because it would make the average person feel better over someone with AIDS or some other auto-immune issues, but it does feel good to know your blood is needed and uncommon.
For those not familiar with CMV: http://blog.inceptsaves.com/blog/2011/05/04/what-does-it-mean-to-have-cmv-negative-blood/
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example. I believe the greater good would be to donate openly and encourage others follow suit either in money and/or time. Just by their actions celebrities can get others to react but when you're silent the totality of the effort will be muted. Just because you are donating openly or setting up charities it doesn't mean you are looking for accolades. The better move is to not care what others will ultimately think for against your motives and actions.
Open giving will never accomplish as much good as anonymous giving because open giving is only good for the recipient, but never good for the giver.
Anonymous giving is good for the giver and receiver. Both become better off.
Open giving is narcissistic, it glorifies the giver. It teaches society narcissism, that you are only important if you are rich and powerful.
Anonymous giving teaches society that the plight of the troubled and needy is what is important (not the giver).
Open giving to coerce others into giving - teaches society that bullying others is proper (it is not).
Anonymous giving teaches society that bullies should be ignored.
I could go on. But I hope you get the idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
But if you want to give anonymously because it make you feel more humble or makes you look more humble to the few people in your inner circle that know you're donating and/or you're afraid of what people might think if you gave sans anonymity isn't that letting your ego dictate your decision?
I think you're perhaps trying to put too fine a point on it.
Speaking for myself, what defines character is what you do (and who you are) when people are not looking -- not when they're looking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I think you're perhaps trying to put too fine a point on it.
Speaking for myself, what defines character is what you do (and who you are) when people are not looking -- not when they're looking.
Another excellent example: Open giving promotes a superficial facade of good character, while anonymous giving improves the givers true character. And society learns from watching both, do we want to teach superficiality or true good character? I say we want folks to develop true good character, not a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SixnaHalfFeet
Another excellent example: Open giving promotes a superficial facade of good character, while anonymous giving improves the givers true character. And society learns from watching both, do we want to teach superficiality or true good character? I say we want folks to develop true good character, not a lie.
In the end, it all amounts to the same: people find out. Like people did, in this instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
In the end, it all amounts to the same: people find out. Like people did, in this instance.
Not the same.
SJ is no longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm actually against this anonymous donating. I understand their position on it, and respect that, but I think the greater good is for those with celebrity status in society to set an example....
One small caveat I'd like to add.
Without going into too much detail, those of us who are of a Christian persuasion subscribe to anonymous giving as being the preferred method, so that the giving does not confer either status or glory onto the person donating. Even if you're filthy rich, you give because you should, not because you'll get your name in the paper.
The anonymous aspect is why I admire Jobs a lot more than Gates when it comes to the subject (that and the nasty way in which Gates uses his foundation as a down-low marketing machine for Microsoft, but that's another discussion...)
It is their money. What the Jobs family or what anyone else does with their money is their business.