Estonia is the Freest Country in the World

[Wells]

As long as there is something aside from just self interest that's fine. You want to feel good about yourself and do something for someone else in need? Great.

Its when you take out that second part that I'm not buying it as charitable.

[Deleted]

I've come across a ton of people saying a ton of things.

But yet you're very surprised that "it is a question".

I think many people help others either because it makes themselves feel better, because it makes society better and by extention themselves better or because some third party is judging your actions. I'm going to go ahead and say that helping others for these "egoistic" reasons is charity.

As long as there is something aside from just self interest that's fine.

But that's the million dollar question, can there really be any other interest than self interest? How can you know that you're not just doing it for yourself?

To judge an ideology purely on something as vague as this seems a bit ridiculous.

[Mormolyce]

Let me tell you, it's not all that easy to separate "true altruism" from helping others because it makes you feel better.

How could you? Doesn't pretty much everyone do everything "good" because they like the feeling of being a good person on a basic level? Why do we act like that's some kind of impure motive? Do we only esteem people's actions when they do them in spite of themselves and are masochistically inflicting suffering on themselves for the sake of others? What kind of twisted morality is that?

[Grizzly Willy]

Suppose it wouldn't be charity if you're being forced to "donate".

[Deleted]

Suppose it wouldn't be charity if you're being forced to "donate".

Well sure, or if you're donating on behalf of someone else or otherwise getting compensated for your donations.

For me the charity part of your deed is essentially the part you do simply for a the good feeling of helping others. Any other benefit reduces the charitable portion.

[Mormolyce]

I never understood why a cross is a symbol for being nordic, its kinda ironic.

The Nordic Cross can trace its origin to what remains the world’s oldest national flag in continuous use, the Danish Dannebrog. Denmark has used the Dannebrog in an official capacity since the 14th century. The most popular of the legends and stories that revolve around the Dannebrog’s origin involves the pennant falling from the sky during either one of two Danish battles wages in Estonia during the Northern Crusades: the Battle of Fellin in 1208, or the Battle of Lyndanisse in 1219. Other theories postulate that the design came from a papal banner sent to either the Danish king or the Danish archbishop for use in said crusades. The earliest undisputed link is traced to between 1340 and 1370 in a Dutch book documenting coats-of-arms known as the Gelre Armorial.

Regardless of the actual origin, it can be reasonably assumed that the Nordic Cross emerged out of the banners uses by Christian princes waging battle in the Northern Crusades. Used as gonfalons, this explains why the Nordic Cross appears to be lying on its side, as the flag is a 90-degree rotation of the gonfalon. Realms, dioceses, and lands ruled by, or in contact with, Denmark applied the existing colours and patterns from their own coats of arms to the basic template laid out on the Dannebrog. This is when the design became secularised under Erik of Pomerania using the same red background only with a gold cross (today known as the Scanian Cross, although the modern version with the same colours is instead meant as a merger of the Danish and Swedish flags in order to reflect Scania’s position as a bridge between the two lands).

http://basementgeographer.blogspot.c...-to-tonga.html

Also, it just looks pretty kickass on a flag.

Still, when I think of crosses I think of Rome and Christianity. Nords weren't part of the Roman Empire.

But they were Christianized like the rest of Western Europe. The Nordic Cross (used on military banners, coats of arms etc) only goes back like 700-800 years. National flags themselves only came into common use in the 1800s or so - though they tended to employ heraldic devices that had been associated with those countries for hundreds of years before.

[Orlong]

Suppose it wouldn't be charity if you're being forced to "donate".

I agree wholeheartedly. Once charity is no longer voluntary, it becomes theft, which is why we shouldnt be FORCED to pay taxes that just get given to someone else. Charity is a great thing, provided I get to decide who benefits from it and who doesnt. I should also be able to decide that nobody should benefit from it because Im broke and need my own money that I earn.

[Grizzly Willy]

I agree wholeheartedly. Once charity is no longer voluntary, it becomes theft, which is why we shouldnt be FORCED to pay taxes that just get given to someone else. Charity is a great thing, provided I get to decide who benefits from it and who doesnt. I should also be able to decide that nobody should benefit from it because Im broke and need my own money that I earn.

That's why taxes aren't considered charity. They're taxes.

[Wells]

But that's the million dollar question, can there really be any other interest than self interest?

Ayn rand certainly thought so.

How can you know that you're not just doing it for yourself?

I've done things I did not want to do and derived no enjoyment from because they needed to be done for others.

[Grizzly Willy]

Ayn rand certainly thought so.


I've done things I did not want to do and derived no enjoyment from because they needed to be done for others.

I think it can be called charity if you do it out of necessity without begrudging it. Charity by indifference. There can be something noble in doing something just because it has to be done.

[Spectral]

I've done things I did not want to do and derived no enjoyment from because they needed to be done for others.

Psychic benefit doesn't end with actively enjoying things, it has a lot to do with how you perceive yourself. I enjoy not perceiving myself as an awful person, which motivates me to help friends in need, even if I have absolutely no pleasure to be gained from it and no expectation of reciprocity.

[Laize]

I'm not saying if you derive pleasure from charity you're not being charitable. But objectivism has a hate on for charity as a moral good and only appoves of it when its done out of self interest. I'm saying that when you do charity purely out of a desire to feel good you're really not being charitable. Objectivism only approves of charity when its done for your own benefit. You're just using the needy to feel good.

Its an issue of motive and I'm saying motive is extremely important in defining what is charitable.

Diurdi, save the circle jerking for the weaker posters.

You seem to have a great misunderstanding of what self interest means in the context of objectivism.

If anything, Objectivism is more hedonistic than sociopathic. Only do what feels good. If charity doesn't feel good, don't do it.

[Wells]

That's the thing, "only do what feels good" is at best childish.

[Catta]

I've done things I did not want to do and derived no enjoyment from because they needed to be done for others.

So you've been the wingman i hear...

[Spectral]

That's the thing, "only do what feels good" is at best childish.

I would have said it's more along the lines of sociopathy.

[Laize]

That's the thing, "only do what feels good" is at best childish.

But no one ever does anything they don't want to if there's not a good reason.

No one donates to the poor because they're being altruistic. They donate because it either feels good to them or they feel a moral obligation.

Objectivism rejects the notion that humans have a moral obligation to anyone but themselves and those they associate with.

[Spectral]

Objectivism rejects the notion that humans have a moral obligation to anyone but themselves and those they associate with.

That's sociopathy: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath

a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

[Laize]

That's sociopathy: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath

It's not a psychopathic disease, nor is it criminal. It doesn't reject the notion that you have NO moral responsibility to others; simply that you CHOOSE whom you have a responsibility to. Nothing is forced on you.

[Spectral]

It's not a psychopathic disease, nor is it criminal. It doesn't reject the notion that you have NO moral responsibility to others; simply that you CHOOSE whom you have a responsibility to. Nothing is forced on you.

Note the use of "or social conscience".

[Laize]

Note the use of "or social conscience".

Sociopathy is regarded as: "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."

Nothing about objectivism disregards the rights of others, nor does it seek to violate them. It even advocates combating them if that's what floats your boat.