[jchen]

I had an interesting discussion with a friend about philanthropy which included current post-war operations. It's true that statistics can be used and yes, human error is perhaps inevitable in terms of civilian deaths but is US presence in Iraq justified by the criterion of morality?

Now, yes, I understand that many of you will be inclined to argue that the incentive for the current administration may be on oil but disregarding any external influences and perhaps taking this into a broad perspective, if our actions are deemed moral by one intent (and in this case it would be an act of philanthropy, perhaps relieving those citizens and giving them the freedom to express their opinions in a post-dictatorial state) then what is the purpose of philanthropy? Furthermore, is our government morally inclined to attenuate international conflicts, that is, an obligation still exists nonetheless even if such an action is not executed (what is considered moral is not always the practical solution)?

How about a government's obligation to its citizens to whom the government is perhaps an extention of in the first place? By allocating resources to philanthropy we compromise our own well-being and while we may be considerably better off in our lifestyle and welfare than others in third world countries by what means would it be considered immoral? If actions are executed on self-interest which has generally been deemed immoral then do we not all live a life of immorality?

Consider what the definition of morality may imply. I understand that that given the definition of morality as a code of conduct, a system which one live their life and places judgement on his/her actions, morality is entirely subjective and there can be no universal meaning to it. But what about objective morality? Does objective morality exist in a secular society and if so, why? Yes, laws by this definition of morality could qualify but what about defining morality as an intrinsically good quality?

Anyway, thoughts, opinions?

[Mohammed Atef]

people help others for several main reasons.

1. they like to help others. it's the right thing to do.
2. helping others means they might get something in return, either tangible or the advancement of their agenda.
3. it makes them look good, and they use that to their own advantage.
4. a tax deduction.

US reasons for helping Iraqis are going to be a combination of 1-3, simply based on history and realpolitik.

[jchen]

Originally posted by Mohammed Atef:
people help others for several main reasons.

1. they like to help others. it's the right thing to do.
2. helping others means they might get something in return, either tangible or the advancement of their agenda.
3. it makes them look good, and they use that to their own advantage.
4. a tax deduction.

US reasons for helping Iraqis are going to be a combination of 1-3, simply based on history and realpolitik.

Yes I understand that these are the reasons people help each other but is it based on a moral principle or is it simply self-interest, perhaps both? If these acts are committed based on a moral intent, then it must be self-interest by your reasoning. I'm not trying to start an argument, just interested in whether anyone has ever thought about it.

For example, is it still morally justified to donate funds to a very desolate country unknown to any other, did not qualify for a tax break, the citizens would never know who you were, and what you received was simply the satisfication of knowing that you assisted someone in need? Such an action is still based on self-interest, however certainly not to the extent of assisting Iraqis.

Is there any delineation between self-interest and morality and if so, who determines this and how so? I may murder a man who causes grief for me mentally but I would still be punished because it is not societally acceptable if I am the only one who benefits. Therefore, is morality determined by quantity?

Just something to ponder.

[jchen]

Note, the purpose for this thread was to incite what morality is. It is one of those vastly subjective terms that no one ever straightforwardly defines yet it is used so often in the English language as a means to justify the ends. I ask this because several responses ilicited to the war in favor of President Bush's plan are on the premises of morality, liberation is considered moral. However at the same time there are several anti-war protestors who claim that the war is morally incorrect because our soldiers are dying and fighting for an unclear cause for an indefinite period of time. Whether you agree with these examples I've presented or not is not neccessarily the question. I was hoping to turn this into a philosophical discussion if possible.

[Developer]

Morale is the greatest possible well-being for the greatest number of people.

If our actions are deemed moral by one intent [...] then what is the purpose of philanthropy?

I don't think this makes any sense.

[Shaddim]

I'm going to turn this discussion a bit to widen it's scope (and avoid old arguments).

Historically, giving $ to people without $ does very little, if any, good. A great deal of the time a person, or country, is poor because of their habits and/or ignorance. Case in point, a Kentucky man won $20mil in a lottery in 1996 and then filed bankruptcy 4 years later (distant relative of mine). This happens more often than not. Why? Because of the mentality... they have said oppertunity and they "spend, spend, spend" instead of invest. In contrast, I know several people, whom if dropped in the middle of NY city with the clothes on their backs and $20, would consistantly be millionaires within 2 years. It's all about acquired habits and ethic.

Money will always flow back to an investment source. It's simple fact. The only way to address such issues of poverty are:

a. remove capital benefit from certain goods and/or services.

b. educate people in regard to spending habits and investment possibilities.

"a" typically doesn't work because of greed and because not everyone is going to see the benefit of such philanthropy. Skimming is an almost unavoidable problem due to oppertunity, no matter what the penalty (if any) may be.

That only leaves "b". Though, many structures will reject such actions because it limits the investment pool. People like having access to easy gain and will find ways to manipulate a system to get it.

So you then have a choice; utterly destroy the cause and sources of entrepreneurialism (which seems impossible), or completely embrace capitalism. Due to man's nature, there doesn't seem to be any alternatives.