Mr Bean wrote:
Cute, so failing to address the point you simply attack and run off.
Let me make this clear, I know why your offended. I don't mind, after all I am telling you an act you saw as a morally good thing to do was a selfish act. Which is what I've said several times now.
Let me put it a bit more bluntly. To preform a selfless act it must be something you don't directly benefit from. I'm not calling you a cunt because you donated money to fight a disease Phant. I'm not calling you anything except to point out the act was selfish in nature, you will benefit from it even if you don't want to admit that. And acting to benefit ones self is a selfish act.
It's as simple as that.
It does not make you bad, it does not make you anything.
You GOT to be kidding me.
So, using your matrix, my donation to the Singapore Heart Foundation is cynical because I fall under multiple risk factors for developing heart disease and my donation to the Singapore Cancer Society benefits me directly, since hey, more funds to help the patients I work with, the faster I get them out of my hair and go home...........
odd. I would had thought it was because I seen the suffering and dilenma those guys went through and that every little bit counts.
Mr Bean wrote:
Losonti Tokash wrote:
No, it's actually about how his personal definition is so ridiculous as to be unusable
I suggest you expand your readings a bit to the culture of India. There you might find two religions known as Hinduism and Buddhism that share the concept of Dāna. That of giving without expecting reward. The concept of charity only being possible when no return is expected or anticipated. To give your food to a beggar is Dāna. To bring that beggar back to work your fields in exchange for food is not. If you expand your search further you will find Judaism with the concept of Tzedakah which holds that second highest form of it is anonymously give donations to unknown recipients. If you wish I can provide links about the various Catholic writings about the concept of Charity and the morality of giving.
My "ridiculous personal definition" forms the heart of several religions statements about how to be moral when giving. It is one the "true" forms of charity in cognitive psychology as Ziggy pointed out. There is a science of morality and discovering a code of universal morality is one of those goals of science.
I suggest you expand your readings a bit to the concept called Karma. As recited in the Diamond Sutra, you reap what you sow. Oh wait, sorry, that's in the Bible. The Chinese version(since I obviously didn't read the damn Vedic verses) is that you get what you give.
Hell, may I point out to you that the concept of Dana in Buddhism, you actually spiritually benefit from the act itself? Thus invalidating your entire philosophical argument that acts of selfless generousity must not benefit oneself, or it is actually motivated more from self interest than others.
You see Bean, the problem is that you're automatically painting anyone who could had benefited from a moral selfless act to be not as selfless as someone who didn't benefit. That's nonsense. We should at least consider the moral matrix of why Phantase donated and the reasons for doing so.
Saying that cognitive pyschology shows that we donate to causes we're affected emotionally is bullshit. Saying that there are philosophical concepts of selfless generousity is also bullshit. Because the problem here that everyone here is aiming at is at one single statement.
"Donating to help yourself is not an act most would call selfless."
The common stance for most people is that if I somehow benefited when I helped others and the benefits to others is greater than my own, then yes, the act is selfless. Insofar as the aim was to help others as opposed to myself. The personal benefit would be a bonus.
A woman who survives breast cancer is not cured, only out of direct danger from the tumor that was threatening her life. One of the most common problems with cancer after all is the cancer flaring back up.
No, it does not. A woman who survives breast cancer is considered cured when the risk of her getting cancer recedes to the normal rate.(for a vulnerable group of population, since she has received treatments which increase her risk of getting blood cancers, breast cancers due to radiation and of course, her own genetic vulnerability.)