Is donating to charity truly selfless?

[mendacium remedium]

http://scientificphilosopher.wordpress. ... r-selfish/

My article/views. I'd like to see your responses.

Is donating to charity such a self-less act?

Quite often we see philanthropists donating to charity.  As I admire what these people do, I will not name them, nor is this article intended to  reprimand or lower the immense contribution of people who donate large sums of money for good causes.

However, when we see billionaires donating a million or two pounds, immediately we all say ' what a generous individual. After all, a million or two pounds, roughly three to four million dollars really can make a huge difference in the life of people.

But to that billionaire, is £1,000,000 from their 1,000,000,000 really all that much? A million pounds donated by someone who has exactly one billion is only 0.1% of their wealth. So to the normal individual, although this can seem like a tidy sum, imagine someone worth £100,000 donating £100. Would we jump and call such a person generous? They also donate 0.1% of their profits.

Does generosity mean how much one donates, rather than the proportion they actually donate? The answer to that really depends on the individual.

Religion and charity

If one believes that by giving charity, their sins are forgiven, or that they will get a reward from God, is giving charity in that regard truly self-less? At best, is it not a long-term investment?

For instance, if I give charity under the pretext I want my sins forgiven, I really am buying myself out of torture or punishment as a consequence of my sins, rather than helping others. Even if I give charity to help people but have this belief, are my actions truly self-less?

Does the atheist who donates to charity without a belief they will obtain a heavenly reward or that their monetary funds can be exchanged as a ransom for their punishment have nobler reason to donate to charity?

Public charitable donations

When celebrities and famous icons, or everyday citizens publically profess or donate to charity, is such an act truly selfless?

For instance, when popstars donate to charity, it comes as headline news. This in turn generates interest in the celebrity, wins them more fans, and probably increases the celebrities profitability and appeal. Would it be more noble for the celebrity to donate 'annonymously'? Or does the celebrity encourage others to donate by also donating publically?

In the Islamic religion, charity is considered to garner a greater significance when it is given in secret.

Does it even matter if something is self-less?

Perhaps it does not matter if there are other reasons to why one decides to donate. Perhaps having an element of self-lessens is the most important thing, and making a contribution proportionate to what you can do.

Just as we are on the topic of charity, you can donate something right now, but it won't be money, it will be time.

If you go on this website, you will be able to detect cancer cells from slides online, and thoroughly shorten the cancer research process.

http://www.cellslider.net/

[Alaric I]

It depends.  There are those that donate to a charity and do it for the right reasons. In TX where many wounded warriors go to be rehabilitated they have a few buildings used as housing for family members.  Denzel Washington bought one of these from his own pocket knowing all he got was the satisfaction of helping a couple hundred family members stay close to their soldier.  People who donate under some premise (like you said having their sins forgiven or using it for a tax break) aren't really being generous.  Why? Because they are geting something out of it.  Take the tax deduction route, esentially you are not giving the money away, you are giving the governments money away.  You are merely handing this charity a few hundred (or more in some cases) dollars and the government is paying you back.  

People that give to these organizations and are not taking any tax breaks and are doing it because it's the right thing to do are being generous.  When there are no strings attached and you know that money is gone and not coming back, this is generosity.

[BarkAtTheMoon]

When it comes to famous and rich people (and really, anyone else) doing charity, the ones that are doing it as a selfless act are the ones you don't hear about for the most part. They just do it without mugging for cameras or anything like that and go about their business, unless they're publicizing it to gain more visibility and donations to the cause.

[Plu]

Pretty much the above. If the only thing ou get out of it is the satisfaction of having done a good deed, that's charity. If you're doing it to get something back, it's just an investment. A much better investment than most, but still an investment.

[Bibliofagus]

I think it is selfless to debate the point that charity is selfless. Nobody gains whereas charity does have some positive effect.

[NitzWalsh]

Religions that teach to give in secret are not being selfless either, they are being selfish... These individual religious nutters are trying to buy points with their deity or make themselves feel good.

[SvZurich]

Well, studies have shown that when tax deductions are reduced or removed from donating to charity, donations from the wealthy sharply go down.

That tells me their donations are selfish.

[Mister Agenda]

There is no such thing as a selfless act, nor should there be. Satisfaction, alleviation of guilt, pride, compassion, whatever the motivation is, if there are no material benefits, you're doing it for emotional benefits. What kind of moral inversion would it take for someone to truly give selflessly, not only with no thought of reward, but not even personal satisfaction or a fleeting warm fuzzy feeling or a sense of accomplishment in one more step of paying off your debt to society? If you give your life for someone else, it's because you value their life more than your own, or because you value being the kind of person to risk that more than you value being alive. I'm with Mr. Twain on this one.

It's no skin off my nose whether I would approve of the reasons you give, I'm just glad that you do.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

Some do it for good reasons, some do it for selfish reasons.  Sometimes we've got to try and look past that and accept that something for charity is better than nothing.

[SilentFutility]

Well, studies have shown that when tax deductions are reduced or removed from donating to charity, donations from the wealthy sharply go down.

That tells me their donations are selfish.

That tells you that the majority of their donations are selfish, if anything.

[Jmpty]

I don't take tax crdits when I donate stuff, or money. If I give a guy on the street 10 bucks, it's because I feel empathy, or sympathy. That's it.

[Teaspoon Shallow]

.....Take the tax deduction route, essentially you are not giving the money away, you are giving the governments money away.  You are merely handing this charity a few hundred (or more in some cases) dollars and the government is paying you back.....

I am not sure how tax is calculated where you are but in Australia if you make a donation to a recognised cause (not just give uncle Larry $50 cause he's broke  :P ) your taxable income is reduced by that amount.  In no way, shape or form are we taxed at a rate of 100%. 50% for high tax brackets yes, but not 100%.  The lower the tax bracket, the less the rebate.

[NitzWalsh]

I don't take tax crdits when I donate stuff, or money. If I give a guy on the street 10 bucks, it's because I feel empathy, or sympathy. That's it.

I don't give anything to the guy on the street because I know the guy on the street here and he just wants to buy meth.

[leo]

Another post for me !

[WitchSabrina]

There is no such thing as a purely selfless act.  When we give to charity or help in a soup kitchen or a women's shelter we feel better about ourselves.  But whether someone feels good about themselves - or not - doesn't matter.  There are always people in need and always people who'll help with charity.  And if you're neither the needy nor the giver of time or money - that's ok, too.  If there was no need there'd be no need for charity and if Everyone sought to help - need would vanish. This isn't exactly the Borg, yanno.  Whatever role you play is totally fine.

cheers

(my two cents worth on charity - what drives it and who)