Blocking comments

[lederhosen]

Just to explain something I do now and then.



Every year, Australia has a SIDS-research charity event called Red Nose Day. (The idea comes from a UK charity of the same name with a different goal). You pay your money, the money goes to SIDS research, you get a red nose and you wear it on the day.

Now, I have nothing against the cause. Cot death is a tragedy, and research into prevention is a Good Thing. But the red nose thing always makes me feel a little uncomfortable. IMHO, charity should be motivated by the desire to do good, not for the feeling of approbation that comes from wearing a visible token of that donation. I feel uncomfortable when I feel somebody's trying to manipulate me into giving via social pressure, and so I tend to avoid that sort of charity; on the rare occasions when I do give them money, I don't take their tokens, because I have no earthly use for them.

Most of the time when I do it, blocking comments is my way of making the metaphorical 'red noses' invisible. If you want to actively want to say something to me, you're welcome, and there are plenty of ways to reach me. But I don't want people sitting there staring at an empty "Respond to post" window feeling they're obliged to fill it up with a friendship tax, if that makes any sense.

Comments

[bunny-hugger.livejournal.com]

IMHO, charity should be motivated by the desire to do good, not for the feeling of approbation that comes from wearing a visible token of that donation.

Kant would say that if you give to charity because you like the feeling of approbation, then you haven't acted morally.

A utilitarian would instead argue that if charities can get more people to donate by exploiting that type of social pressure, then they ought to do so. Those benefiting from the charity will benefit regardless of the motivation of the donors.

[corruptedjasper.livejournal.com]

And a realist will say they're both right simultaneously. Kant isn't saying the *charity* is acting immorally, after all, just the giver.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of the difference between utilitarian approaches and 'principle'-based approaches like Kant's there comes down to the scope at which one views the problem.

Viewed one year at a time, exploiting social pressure is a good way to get more SIDS research done, hopefully saving some lives. But in the longer term, I think it can potentially undermine charity by making its motivation less direct - "helping others makes me feel good, so I give", vs. "being approved of by others makes me feel good, being seen to do good makes others approve of me, so I give when others are watching". Of those, the second has more potential points of failure.

In the short term but wider scope, it can also cause harm by diverting money that was already earmarked for charity from more efficient causes to more popular ones.