# Paradox of Charity



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

WHAT IS MORE MORAL?

Take this paradox:

You have the opportunity to help people a 100 people but time and finance are limited. In this paradox you could feed all the 100 people and feel that you've accomplished something good after you've exhausted your efforts doing so. However the drawback is that you'll do this only for a single day when they get to eat a meal, after that they will return to suffering and the whole shebang continues. 

The second case is that out of those 100 people, you could chose 5 to "teach to fish", in other words invest installing life skills that prevent the whole shebang from ever happening in the long run. However in doing so you'd have to select the people to help, based on such "crude" (judgmental) aspects as intelligence and health; you'd need to judge them on those terms since the success rate is bounded by those terms. This is practically playing "god" with their lives choosing who should be aloud to live and die. Its a like a chaotic titanic scene except there are no rules to follow beyond what you say.

Option 1 will live all your efforts are in vain long term wise. All those people you help die eventually. On the plus side you would have done something just since you wouldn't have picked favorites. You see the most happy amount of faces whilst you do it.

_Edits: I think most of you choose this option if you consider thinking about it since not that many people appear to have a long term interest in seeing how their efforts turn out
_
Whereas, Option 2 lives you with horrid memories of the 95 you chose to die. You kind of think you made mistakes in your choices but a burden will loom over you. On the bright side you would possibly get 5 people who survive till old age. 

_Edits: The other flaw about option 2 is that you don't how those you decide to save will turn out to be. This is if you pick people at random without any consideration for potential. So the question is:*how will you know those to choose?*(they aren't all the same_)
*
What's your choice? I think none of these options are inherently pleasant, but it feels like there is still a lot more to this.

*


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

I will crude and make a judgement.
I need to expect some long-term influence with the people I save.


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

The problem I see is this is an unreal situation. No one person has the total responsibility in such a situation. So with this being artificial and grandiose, there is no real life solution.

There have been cases where one person or family had resources in war or disaster areas, shared all they had, suffered and andi n some cases (during WW II) died with them. There have probably been cases where the better-off kept their resources hidden, but who remembers and praises selfish bastards, anyhow?


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

I would choose the second case mainly because there's a possibility that those 5 would spread the seed of wisdom and compassion towards other people and teach others what I taught them. This can cause a chain reaction in which hopefully more than 5 people would benefit in the long run.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

Gnothi Seauton said:


> I would choose the second case mainly because there's a possibility that those 5 would spread the seed of wisdom and compassion towards other people and teach others what I taught them. This can cause a chain reaction in which hopefully more than 5 people would benefit in the long run.


Same choice and same reasoning as this. I help these 5 people with the stipulation that they in turn help 5 people each. Then, hopefully, the chain continues.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Well I don't think 95 people would all die instantaneously after you choose your 5 people. Even though it isn't guaranteed I'd teach 5 people to fish so they would hopefully teach some others. Option 1 is a waste of resources and time, and in the end they all die. And because I know how to fish, I would use the 5 people (and whoever the might teach) to help me get food for everyone. Problem solved.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

OldManRivers said:


> The problem I see is this is an unreal situation. No one person has the total responsibility in such a situation. So with this being artificial and grandiose, there is no real life solution.
> 
> There have been cases where one person or family had resources in war or disaster areas, shared all they had, suffered and andi n some cases (during WW II) died with them. There have probably been cases where the better-off kept their resources hidden, but who remembers and praises selfish bastards, anyhow?


How is it unreal might I ask? If you want to translate a little bit more to reality the premises remain the same. You don't have all the money yet if you must help what are you going to do?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> Well I don't think 95 people would all die instantaneously after you choose your 5 people. Even though it isn't guaranteed I'd teach 5 people to fish so they would hopefully teach some others. Option 1 is a waste of resources and time, and in the end they all die. And because I know how to fish, I would use the 5 people (and whoever the might teach) to help me get food for everyone. Problem solved.


Ok, a little added translation, think of the 95 people being in ultra poverty and a few months away from death. Well the odds are severely against them...


----------



## Iustinus (Jun 13, 2012)

Option 2. If Option 1 is selected, then the rescue is temporary for all. If Option 2 is selected, then the rescue is permanent for a few.


----------



## HippoHunter94 (Jan 19, 2012)

Maybe I've been thinking too heavily about how rich people are somehow evil, but the only problem with number two is that the perspective fishermen might very well hold their power over others, assuming they save the other ninety-five, and trade their skills for various favors. Other than that, it's still the better option. I mean, unless the first included fruits and such where the people could harvest more food from seeds and such, the latter is better.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

HippoHunter94 said:


> Maybe I've been thinking too heavily about how rich people are somehow evil, but the only problem with number two is that the perspective fishermen might very well hold their power over others, assuming they save the other ninety-five, and trade their skills for various favors. Other than that, it's still the better option. I mean, unless the first included fruits and such where the people could harvest more food from seeds and such, the latter is better.


The 95 do die, that is what is ugly about option 2 even though it appears to work, how would you build the morality of the 5 that live


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

Option 1 is the best choice, and the one most people will respond to in the case of emergencies. If someone just needs a quick hand up to get through, they should be given it because eventually they will be productive, and possibly be of service to you.

Option two is less enjoyable because it's a coping situation. You're hoping to set someone on their feet, but there's no guarantee of it. It's potentially wasteful of resources and time. Economically it is the better choice in non-disaster situation though (which means, irl a lot of the time)


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

bellisaurius said:


> Option 1 is the best choice, and the one most people will respond to in the case of emergencies. If someone just needs a quick hand up to get through, they should be given it because eventually they will be productive, and possibly be of service to you.
> 
> Option two is less enjoyable because it's a coping situation. You're hoping to set someone on their feet, but there's no guarantee of it. It's potentially wasteful of resources and time. Economically it is the better choice in non-disaster situation though (which means, irl a lot of the time)


You seem to have misunderstood the premises, this is talking about general poverty, people who seem to be stuck in such a mess without being able to get out. If you want a real life analogy, why is it that over a trillion dollars have been given to the third world yet they still seem as worse of as they've been. It's the difference between "Giving a man a fish" and "teaching a man to fish".

I'm not saying that you are wrong since in a natural disaster, some people may need a little short term boost before getting back to normal. However that's different from prolonged poverty were there is no progress.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> You seem to have misunderstood the premises, this is talking about general poverty, people who seem to be stuck in such a mess without being able to get out. If you want a real life analogy, why is it that over a trillion dollars have been given to the third world yet they still seem as worse of as they've been. It's the difference between "Giving a man a fish" and "teaching a man to fish".
> 
> I'm not saying that you are wrong since in a natural disaster, some people may need a little short term boost before getting back to normal. However that's different from prolonged poverty were there is no progress.


I thought that might be the point, I just figured it was worthwhile to include when giving a fish is the optimal choice. I do agree with your larger point though, in fact, a great book I've recently read on the topic, _The Persistence of Povert_discusses this point, and goes on even fuether to state that if you're going to help just 5 people, you should help the five that are closest to getting their heads above water, as they'll be able to carry on, whereas the others may just squander the newly gained knowledge not because they don;t have enough food, but because they have too many problems besides food.


----------



## bolter1 (May 21, 2012)

I'd go for option 2 since it says nowhere that those 5 people don't teach others how to fish or share their food, so there is potential, however small, that more than 5 will live, however with option 1 all will die no matter what.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> You seem to have misunderstood the premises, this is talking about general poverty, people who seem to be stuck in such a mess without being able to get out. If you want a real life analogy, *why is it that over a trillion dollars have been given to the third world yet they still seem as worse of as they've been. *It's the difference between "Giving a man a fish" and "teaching a man to fish".
> 
> I'm not saying that you are wrong since in a natural disaster, some people may need a little short term boost before getting back to normal. However that's different from prolonged poverty were there is no progress.


That's more due to corruption. People may stay poor because the nation's resources that ought to belong to everyone go into he pockets of a few.


----------



## HonestThief (May 28, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> WHAT IS MORE MORAL?
> 
> Take this paradox:
> 
> ...



Or you could teach the five people how to fish, teach them how to survive and everything, and then tell them to go out and teach the others. Those five people could reach another five people each, and those twenty five could reach 125. And so on.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

HonestThief said:


> Or you could teach the five people how to fish, teach them how to survive and everything, and then tell them to go out and teach the others. Those five people could reach another five people each, and those twenty five could reach 125. And so on.


You have to stay within the logistics though, in reality the principle is similar, there wouldn't be enough money to help everyone properly. Yet if you cop out and just feed them for a day, you won't stop prolonged poverty.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Nitou said:


> That's more due to corruption. People may stay poor because the nation's resources that ought to belong to everyone go into he pockets of a few.


That's why I'm not inclined to give to the third world despite the shock value commercials they always air. It doesn't really help so I think letting god decide is the ethical way... as crude as it sounds


----------



## HonestThief (May 28, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> You have to stay within the logistics though, in reality the principle is similar, there wouldn't be enough money to help everyone properly. Yet if you cop out and just feed them for a day, you won't stop prolonged poverty.


Teaching five men how to fish is within the budget. And you will obviously teach them in a crude cheap way, something easily available to a homeless person such as a stick and string. And then those homeless people will go out and teach the others, at no cost to you. Unless you're teaching the homeless man to fish with a 500 dollar rod and reel, the homeless man will have practical methods he can teach to the others.


----------

