“Liberals may give fewer total dollars to charity than conservatives, but they give a higher percentage of their total income–so that’s MORE.”

Huh?!? Are you suggesting that liberals have lower incomes than conservatives? Surely that’s not what you meant to say. I’m going to assume you simply expressed yourself poorly, and you didn’t really mean to say something that silly.

Definitely think that giving is important on so many levels least of which, IMHO, has to do with helping other people.

Our desire for possessions is what is causing many of the problems we see in the world today and by making a concerted effort to give some of our disposable income away can reduce this while helping those who are in basic need.

I would however like to suggest that just giving to a charity or letting a payment go off an account is not the most effective way to do either of the above.

As a thought: what if everyone helped just one other person in need until they were self-sustaining and then helped that person to do the same for someone else….?

Some major charities have adopted political positions I dislike or find untenable. I may be able to disregard their views if I find an item of clothing at their thrift store occasionally, but I will not donate officially.

I have already chosen one good cause I would like to give to regularly, and will select another four or five to which I can donate small amounts from ten to thirty dollars. If I’m relaly doing well, who knows ?:).
Good causes arise all the time, so I’ll have plenty to choose from! Many people forget that there are so mnay small charities/causes/issues they can donate to – you don’t need to automatically slot in the major charity players.

Hunt around, it’s amazing how many valuable charities and foundations there are.

For the sake of example if someone’s morals are religious in nature they presumably come from a set of truth statements about history that are either true or false. If they are true, then they should be able to derive a morality from it that is also true. If the premise is false, well then it’s a house of cards that comes tumbling down rather quickly.

The beliefs have to be rooted in something. If they aren’t, as I can only guess is the case for “Mr. E” (see comment #132), then we really don’t have much to talk about. Feelings, whims, and random desires cannot be used as a moral basis simply because their direct result is a system where any and everything is permissible, which is the antithesis of morality.

To me, the practical solution has been to follow the value system aka premise I believe in – while recognizing that there are other belief systems and consequently to others, some of the things I believe to be right, could be very wrong. Attitudes to sex are a vivid example of such differences.

I always thought that this approach is what moral relativity or subjectivity is about. I guess we have different definitions. But the conversation is indeed reaching its limit as we probably both understand its current direction and points.

… Anyway this is a 2 cigar conversation and I think we’re hitting the limits of the level of conversation that is possible on a message board. I think you get my point and where I would go with it.

Specifically regarding the idea of charity – given that I’m still working my way out of debt, I have chosen not to give financially but I have made it a priority to give in physical ways. I consider it a “time tithe” in a sense – I try to give x amount of hours per month to working in charitable ways. I also have found a local charity that takes used items and provides them for free to those in need (not reselling like Good Will). In this case, I appreciate that my old clothing or housewares go for free to those who can use them.

Exactly. For example, that is the subjective reality I live in. Depending on a view point and system of values, the same action can be viewed as right and wrong at the same time. Ethics and morality have changed over time and culture, and will continue to change.

It’s like math, the most logical and objective construct ever, correct? Parallel lines do not cross – but if you are on a sphere, they do. The same axiom is both right and wrong depending on which geometry you are using – and both spherical and conventional plane geometries are applicable to our everyday world.

What other basis do we have to determine what is moral and what isn’t? Are you saying that your morality is based on your feelings? How am I supposed to know it is the right thing?

Further, just because their are many different viewpoints on what is and isn’t moral, it doesn’t follow that morality is grey. That just means that some people are right and some wrong. We’re debating who falls where. To say that morality is grey is to say that in a very specific circumstance one action can be both right and wrong at the same time. I’m not sure that is what you meant?

I am not religious, I did not grow up in the south, I am a liberal. Most of the people I know and have known over the years are the same.

My experience has been quite the opposite of what this author states as the “truth”. I now live in the south and am surrounded by conservative religious folks… who are shocked at the amount of money and time I give to charities. The only thing they all seem to agree about giving money to is churches. Other charitable organizations? Forget it.

Why on earth did this blog have to introduce politics into what could have been a very interesting and pleasant subject? I’m really disappointed that this financial blog was used as a platform to push political views.

Please stay on topic and get rid of the politics. If I want to read about politics, there are much better (and more informed about facts) sites to go to.

Love the NYT article though.

Also, how do you determine how much giving/taking care is enough. What basis do you use to make these decisions? (I’m not asking in jest, I’m seriously curious.)

@ Russ, I’m afraid I can’t explain why it’s decent to take care of your fellow human beings as and when you can. Nor can I tell you whether you are being indecent or immoral; only you know that. I can tell you there’s no guilt involved, and no sacrifice either as I can easily afford what I currently give (time and money). If my family needed something from me I would absolutely provide it. Since they don’t, I provide instead for causes I value.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

Interesting New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Several studies show the same general type of data. Just because the data cited in this article is partisan, doesn’t mean the data is incorrect.

I give to my religious organization, so I’m not knocking doing that, I just know that most of the funds I’m giving are really for me (for services and music I enjoy, a beautiful place to have gatherings with friends, free classes, free counseling, etc.), and that only a small percentage is used for charity programs for outsiders.

I buy a blanket for $10 and give it to Good Will. They now have a blanket.

$10 in taxes to buy a blanket is reduced because you are introducing more hands simply to pass the money along.

It seems so simple but many just want other people to take care of problems when it is not the best way to attack a problem.

I will not join in the fracas between religion and nons as it gets everyone in a tizzy nor between conservatives and liberals because both of those groups tend to be hypocrites and I would not want to be classified as either one.

As to your question “Is there really no one and nothing that is worth it to you to give a tiny bit of yourself?” I guess you’d have to clarify what you mean by “give”. But there are plenty in my life whom I love dearly and to whom I’d sacrifice a great deal for. My reason for doing so would not be sacrifice in and of itself. Sacrifice of a lesser virtue for a greater one is not really sacrifice at all.

The article touches on giving out of guilt, and talks about giving without providing any rationale for doing so (other than guilt). Which begs the question – why are you guilty in the first place? Guilt is a response to a set of moral values. I’d simply ask that everyone would think long and hard about what their moral values are and why they hold them.

Rand’s philosophy of objectivism does not depend on her ability to be happy. Judge it on it’s merits, not on what may or may not be true about Ms. Rand herself.

Look, ma! No politics!

What I Give: I’ve tracked my spending for 2 1/2 years, and I really only give a little bit. I’ve pushed myself to give a bit more each year. This year I vowed to give 1% of my take-home. Do the math: it’s not much.

Where I Give: I give as my values dictate, mostly locally: to my local NPR station and to a local food bank.

I have never missed the money, which clearly indicates I could give a bit more! Next year I’m going for a whopping 2%.