#Ethics of Giving

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Effective Altruism

Effective Altruism is a philosophy and social movement that emphasizes using evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to improve the world and help others. It combines the altruistic desire to do good with a rigorous, results-oriented approach to maximize the positive impact of charitable actions.

Key Principles of Effective Altruism:

Maximizing Impact:

Effective altruism focuses on ensuring that the time, money, and effort devoted to helping others yield the greatest possible impact. This involves identifying causes, interventions, and charities that provide the most benefit per unit of resources.

Evidence-Based Approach:

Central to effective altruism is the use of evidence and data to assess which interventions and organizations are most successful. This often involves evaluating scientific research, performing cost-effectiveness analyses, and assessing the tangible results of various efforts to help.

Cause Prioritization:

Rather than spreading resources across all causes, effective altruism advocates prioritizing certain areas where the need is greatest, or where the most lives can be saved or improved. This could include global poverty, animal welfare, or existential risks such as climate change or artificial intelligence.

Long-Term Thinking:

Effective altruism often involves consideration of the long-term consequences of actions, including potential effects on future generations. Altruists might consider how present actions can help reduce future risks or improve the well-being of future individuals.

Moral Cosmopolitanism:

Effective altruism operates on the principle that all human lives (and sometimes animal lives) are of equal value, regardless of where a person is born or lives. This means that people should focus on causes that provide the most help to those in the greatest need, even if they are far removed geographically.

Personal Responsibility and Earning to Give:

Some proponents of effective altruism believe that individuals can do more good by earning a high income and donating a significant portion of it to highly effective causes, a concept known as "earning to give."

Openness to Self-Improvement:

Effective altruists constantly seek feedback and are willing to change their actions or strategies based on new evidence or better reasoning. The movement emphasizes flexibility and continuous improvement in pursuing altruistic goals.

Criticisms of Effective Altruism:

Narrow Focus: Some critics argue that the focus on measurable outcomes can lead to neglecting important, but harder-to-quantify, causes such as systemic social change or cultural initiatives.

Elitism: The emphasis on high-income individuals "earning to give" can create perceptions that effective altruism is only accessible to wealthy or highly educated people.

Overemphasis on Utilitarian Calculations: The movement's utilitarian focus on maximizing good outcomes can lead to difficult ethical decisions, such as favoring saving a large number of lives in the future over addressing pressing issues in the present.

The philosophy of effective altruism combines moral concern for the well-being of others with pragmatic reasoning to ensure that altruistic efforts are as impactful as possible. It encourages individuals and organizations to critically evaluate their charitable actions, seek evidence-based solutions, and prioritize causes that yield the greatest benefits for society.

[tysonfurybattlepass]

cats of all types and sizes are god’s perfect killing machines and i can only hope and dream to achieve the raw athletic potential and destructive force that felids are capable of. all while looking like :3

[incognitopolls]

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[ffcrazy15]

There's this way of doing female-ness in Christianity that I call "pastel flower journal Christianity." I've got nothing against pastel flower journals per se, but for some reason people believe it's the end all and be all of female spirituality, and I think it's a real disservice towards young Christian women.

One of these days I'd like to start a prayer-and-reading group or something for young women, but there would be no floral themes or over-focus on how "God thinks you're beautiful even if the world doesn't" (a true statement, but it's wayyyyy too often the focus in women's spiritual reading). Instead we would be reading:

Seneca's Letters from a Stoic

Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning

Sheed's A Map of Life

Portions of Pieper's book on leisure

Kreeft's Three Philosophies of Life

Guardini's The Lord (or something similar)

Therese's Story of a Soul

and some select portions of the Nicomachean Ethics.

(Also they're all getting the porn talk. I don't know why we give the porn talk to young men but not young women. There's this idea that women don't use porn and they only need the talk about "guarding their heart." Bullshit. There's porn on the YA shelves of Barnes and Nobles and before that there were bodice rippers. Young women need the porn talk too.)

Every young woman needs to be getting a basic grounding in virtue ethics, logic, natural law, scholastic philosophy and Biblical hermeneutics if they're going to get by in today's spiritual landscape. Enough faffery and emotionalism in young women's spiritual education! Give them real food to chew on, not pasty sentimentalism!

[sophies-junkyard]

Change is incremental, but something CHANGED today. You weren’t sure about voting for Biden? You don’t have to anymore! And now is the time to RALLY. The world is fucked up, but letting Trump win will not lead to the political revolution we’re waiting for. Wake up.

Im gonna vote for Kamala Harris in November because I don’t want a wannabe dictator running our country. Simple as that.

[lazylittledragon]

this is a cult this is a cult this is a cult

[doobledabbadoo]

got around making some more htf ocs!! i honestly cant stop theyre too fun to make actually

[starless-gaze]

seeing anti jeggy posts on my feed is wild bc the argument is always that it's ooc for james

like how do you know james wouldn't be into regulus??? did he tell you that????

[turtleblogatlast]

Leo’s natural intuition and perceptiveness are so good and subtle but seen throughout the whole show many, many times. And it’s interesting to see how these natural characteristics of his give way to other traits of his as well.

Like, him loving twists and betrayals and surprises goes hand in hand with him being so naturally intuitive.

Canonically, he knows his fam so well he can predict how they’re going to react (knowing what state his fam would be in during the base Shredder fight, being able to trick everyone in Lair Games, knowing Splinter would fall asleep after milk and cake, etc etc etc etc), and he also knows how to predict and manipulate his enemies as well (the “salami paper”, everything with Big Mama, etc etc etc etc).

This intuition comes off as very natural, so it makes so much sense that anything that throws that off would be fun for him to encounter! Provided that the “surprise” isn’t, y’know, world ending.

Moreover, this intuition and perceptiveness also goes hand in hand with how he’s secretly more responsible than he lets on, having to remind his brothers to be aware of how they appear or what may be too much for them or who they may hurt if they’re not careful.

Lastly, and this one is obvious, but these traits are also what fuel Leo’s sense of strategy, which is displayed not only with his actions on the battlefield, but every conversation he has outside of it. After all, it’s a long game to play, to appear a certain way. The Face Man is just another strategy.

So yeah, he knows people. He knows people very, very well.

And he tries very hard to make sure no one knows him.

[philosophybits]

Great and noble people find it more pleasant to do good than to receive it.

Baltasar Gracián, The Art of Worldly Wisdom

[omegaphilosophia]

The Ethics of Giving

The ethics of giving explores the moral principles that govern charitable donations, philanthropy, and other acts of generosity. It involves questions about how much we ought to give, whom we should prioritize when giving, and what ethical responsibilities accompany our capacity to help others.

Key Themes in the Ethics of Giving:

Moral Obligation vs. Voluntariness:

Moral obligation addresses whether individuals are morally required to give to those in need, or whether giving is a voluntary act of kindness. Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that those with wealth have a moral duty to help the less fortunate, especially when it involves relatively small sacrifices for significant benefits.

The opposing view suggests that charity is voluntary, a supererogatory (beyond duty) action that individuals can choose to perform but are not ethically bound to do.

How Much to Give:

A significant ethical question is: how much should one give? Some argue for a proportional approach, suggesting that people should give based on their means, while others propose more radical positions, like giving to the point where additional giving would significantly reduce one’s own quality of life.

Peter Singer's famous "drowning child" analogy suggests that, just as you would be morally obligated to save a drowning child if it required minimal sacrifice, so too are you obligated to give as much as possible to help those in poverty or suffering, as long as it doesn’t cause you undue harm.

Effectiveness and Impact:

The effectiveness of giving is a central issue, particularly in movements like effective altruism, which argues that giving should be directed toward the most effective causes, where each dollar can have the greatest impact. This leads to the ethical question of whether it is morally wrong to give to causes that are less efficient or less impactful when better alternatives exist.

Should people focus on saving lives through global poverty initiatives, for instance, or is it equally moral to donate to causes that enhance the quality of life or support cultural endeavors?

Prioritizing Recipients:

The ethics of giving also addresses whom to prioritize in charitable efforts. Should we give to those closest to us (friends, family, local community), or should we prioritize the global poor, who might be in more urgent need? This raises questions of proximity vs. global responsibility.

Some argue for a moral cosmopolitanism, where all lives are equally valuable regardless of location, while others believe it is natural and acceptable to prioritize those closest to us.

Motivations for Giving:

Ethical concerns also focus on the motivation behind giving. Is it more virtuous to give anonymously, or does it matter if one seeks recognition for their charity? Altruism, at its core, is about giving for the sake of others, but self-interested giving (such as giving for social status or tax benefits) complicates this ideal.

Conditional vs. Unconditional Giving:

There is an ethical debate over whether giving should be conditional (requiring recipients to meet certain criteria, such as job training or rehabilitation) or unconditional (giving freely without stipulations). Conditional giving can be seen as paternalistic, while unconditional giving might be criticized for encouraging dependency.

The Role of Government and Systemic Change:

Some ethicists argue that while individual giving is important, it cannot replace systemic changes that address the root causes of poverty, inequality, and injustice. This raises questions about whether it is more ethical to donate to direct aid or to support efforts that seek to reform broader economic, social, and political systems.

Opportunity Cost:

The ethics of giving also considers the opportunity cost of donations—what could have been done with the resources had they not been given? For example, donating to a cause might divert funds from other areas like personal or familial needs, which could raise ethical concerns about balancing generosity with responsibility toward one's immediate obligations.

Ethical Theories on Giving:

Utilitarianism: From a utilitarian perspective, the ethical action is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. Giving, therefore, should be directed to the most effective means of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number.

Deontology: Deontological ethics focuses on the duty to give rather than the consequences. Some argue that giving is a moral duty regardless of the outcome, based on the principle of helping others in need.

Virtue Ethics: According to virtue ethics, giving is a manifestation of virtues like generosity and compassion. The emphasis is on cultivating good character and acting from a place of moral virtue, rather than solely focusing on the consequences.

The ethics of giving is a multifaceted area of moral philosophy that deals with not only how and why we give but also to whom, how much, and with what motivation. It raises important questions about our responsibilities to others and challenges us to consider how best to balance personal well-being with the needs of those around us, particularly in a world marked by inequality and suffering.

[despazito]

Actually some of us think about our ecological impact all the time and on a list of resource priorities I think food and a communication device has more reason to exist than a dogshit coca cola commercial

[supreme-leader-stoat]

Response to your reblog before I peace out.

The argument of the immorality of abortion is built on the assumption that life inherently has value. Lives do not have any inherent value, because they are the result of millions of years of naturally occurring processes. These natural processes do not have any inherent moral value; attempting to assign one would involve invoking some sort of "god" that exists beyond the material, observable, provable world we live in, rather than some logical, clear, and distinct notion such as the one attempted to be shown. For these reasons, abortion is morally neutral.

On that note, the morality and legality of abortion are thereby a human notion, with a logically valid -though not logically sound- argument in either direction. The argument presented says that "no human life should be purposefully ended by another human being. Because that's murder." In short, they believe that murder is necessarily and inherently immoral. That's all it is though, a belief: There is no wholly logical ground to stand on with regards to murder being universally bad in all scenarios, because of its' moral neutrality as I proved above. In other words, the morality and legality of aborting a fetus is wholly subjective.

"Do you actually have an issue with my argument that a fetus is a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder[?]"

Yes I do. A fetus is not survivable beyond the confines of the womb for quite some time; in fact, not until right before the fetus is due to become a baby and be born, that ever-reliable 8 month mark after insemination. As such, considering the fetus is unable to survive without constant connection to the pregnant person, it stands to reason that this is an extension of their body at this point, rather than a separate entity. If one intended to claim it still was at the stages before a fetus can survive independently, then consider this implication: Parasites rely on being attached to living beings in order to survive. This includes humans. Therefore, following the earlier claim that "a fetus is a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder," a parasite attached to a human is also a human being with the right to life, and ending their life is murder. Therefore, it is more reasonable to claim that for most of the pregnancy cycle, a fetus is not a separate entity from the pregnant person, and by extension, "ending its' life" is not murder.

"Babies are people, too, and have the same right to life as an adult."

This is true! Because babies are not fetuses.

Just thought you would want to read this, because anti-choice rhetoric can be very harmful in shutting down the agency of pregnant people and their ability to dictate their own lives. Knowing the direction that restrictions of this kind have gone in the past, those restrictions will not stop after the illegalization of abortion. Please consider who this harms and who this helps before spreading closed-minded rhetoric of that kind.

Either morality (God-given or otherwise, because there are many secular arguments against abortion) exists or it doesn't. There is a line in the sand or there is not. If you truly intend to argue that lives have no inherent value beyond what we assign them, then not only are the two of us operating in completely irreconcilable ethical frameworks, but yours collapses under its own weight; harm, agency, all these things mattering hinges on the idea that humans and (to a lesser extent) other forms of life have inherent worth, inherent dignity, that causing the former and undermining the latter are wrong in and of themselves.

If there is no objective standard on which to hang our arguments, then everything becomes subjective; all that matters is what we value on a social and individual level. And if that's the case, why would I ever bother to value the opinions of you, a stranger on the internet, over my own? It would be unfair and wrong of me not to consider other positions, to try to see things from another person's point of view, but why should I care about fairness or rightness?

Equating an embryo or fetus to a parasite is fallacious and incorrect. Ignoring that by the scientific definition parasites have to be a different species from the host, and that a pregnancy is a two-way street that also provides benefits for the mother, embryos and fetuses are simply living out the natural development cycle that literally every other human being on the planet has gone through. The biological principles at play in parasitism and human reproduction are fundamentally different.

I could keep going. I could match your arguments with my own about how anti-life rhetoric is a slippery slope to eugenics, about how I could just as easily twist your arguments around to make social parasites out of the elderly and disabled; but in this case it's pointless, because I can't even get you to sit down and agree upon simple principles like "human lives have value" and "murder is bad" or even "there is such a thing as objective morality."

[hhhhleb]

getting to know each other

they got stuck in the Void(?) for an indefinite period of time…without Ink's brush and vials.. they have nothing to do but talk i guess..(more thoughts in tags)

related to this thing with sci and this red ink thing

[fairybonesandstardust]

you can’t knowingly fuck a criminal and then turn around and get mad at them for doing something unethical, dubiously moral or illegal that directly involves you. what about this man made you think he follows the laws, is ethical or even moral? you knew damn well that he killed people for a living. how are you going to date someone whose probably on the FBI’s most wanted list (top 10) and then turn around and be surprised that he invaded your privacy? make it make sense. you can be mad at him all you want but shawty the man has proven time and time again who he is as a person. if this mother fucker is out here willingly killing bitches and has probably broken the geneva convention on multiple occasions what makes you think you’ll be exempt 😭? don’t be shy share with the class?

[evermoredeluxe]

gonna be harsh for a minute here. i can’t imagine what it would’ve been like for taylor to be on the eras tour, and instead of being celebrated, hearing about how she is some evil person for achieving these amazing things. ofc the breakup led to A Lot of Stuff, but staying would’ve been so damaging too. just thinking about how successful red tv/midnights were, but she was still feeling so down and felt the need to pull back and protect her relationship by not being “Too Big.” just glad that she is in a good place both professionally and personally and is supported instead of being put down.