Ipod, Mosaic
Busy weekend. Went down to the IT show again to see the litter on the floor, my new iPod is called iPod Philosophy, not sure why I named her that but it just sounds easy and I usually don't like searching too much for a fanciful name. Today she accompanied me to school to an empty, dark and cheerless lecture theatre early in the morning and I told her that this is the kind of environment she has to learn to appreciate if she's going to be with me for any extended period of time, which in all likelihood she will be. In reply she played some lovely songs for me.
Went down to Mosaic for some free music, sat for 3 hours listening to some jazz fusion stuff. I'm not sure why I stayed so long. Maybe it was because looking at the artistes playing and enjoying their music is a pleasure in itself. Maybe because some part of me wanted to make sense of the seemingly incoherent music, and after that long a time listening to the saxophones and keyboard and guitars and percussion I think I must have acquired a taste for jazz. Anyway, there was this guy seated in front of me who, throughout one performance, was drumming his fingers and shaking his leg and head up and down and sideways. He looked as though he was enjoying the music tremendously, and looking at him made me marvel at how different people are, to have someone who enjoys the jazz fusion thing so much and to have me behind him trying to make sense of it all.
Sunday saw another trip to Mosaic again, this time for some free indie music, no much comments there. I would love to go down every evening this week but I've got a test this Thursday. Since when was a test more important than free music? I'm not sure. I'm not sure. But I should be down most days from Thursday to Sunday.
***
Recent mail circulated to students asking for donations to help some fellow undergraduate pay her medical bills made me agitated. This student suffers from a type of blood cancer that may cause her blood marrow to malfunction and may damage other organs as well. Her medical expenses are estimated to be around $400,000 and her family's monthly income is $400.
In the email there was mention of her being on the dean's list several times, as well as her being an active student leader. I wonder how this is relevant to a potential donor in the first place. The underlying meaning seems to be that this student is an outstanding one whose loss would be regretted.
There are some questions to ask here. Firstly, does that mean that the life of someone who is not on the dean's list, and not an active student leader, any less worth saving? Secondly, even if we take it that value to society is and should be a factor in our decision to help a person or not, why should being on the dean's list and being an active student leader be factored in into considering how much that person is valuable? In the first place I'm not even sure if being on the dean's list is a necessary or sufficient measure of one's intelligence, just as I'm not sure if being an active student leader is any indicator of one's moral character.
Besides, I believe there are many others both in and out of NUS that have led, and will continue leading, a life that has more pain and suffering than this student. In many of these cases a dollar spent helping them may be more cost-effective than every dollar spent helping this particular student. For $400,000 you can probably alleviate the problems of dozens of poor students who may be having their studies affected or who are suffering from severe illnesses, and still have leftover to improve the lives of dozens of handicapped people on the street. There are so many others out there who need help, if you want to help her, why not help the others? The only difference now is that her case is made known to us, but why should knowledge of one's case be any factor in considering how much to donate and to whom? If you wouldn't ordinarily donate $2 to the handicapped beggar on the street why donate to this student now? On the basis that she's on the dean's list? On the basis that she is young and promising? On the basis that an email was circulated to you?
Incidentally, this problem of knowledge is why I don't donate to beggars on the street. I may sympathise with the plight of a blind old woman selling tissue papers but there are so many others like her, why should I privilege her and not the others? My response is to not donate anything at all, to anyone. Now, you may think of that an irrational response, but allow me to point out that I feel worse when I donate to a random beggar than if I don't donate at all. I think of people whom I've left out, people who probably need that money more than that person does, and the only way out, for me at least, is to be consistent and not donate at all.
In the case of this NUS student, not only do I feel the need to not donate, I feel a strong sense of repulsion to the case. It smacks strongly of elitism and biased preferences.
Went down to Mosaic for some free music, sat for 3 hours listening to some jazz fusion stuff. I'm not sure why I stayed so long. Maybe it was because looking at the artistes playing and enjoying their music is a pleasure in itself. Maybe because some part of me wanted to make sense of the seemingly incoherent music, and after that long a time listening to the saxophones and keyboard and guitars and percussion I think I must have acquired a taste for jazz. Anyway, there was this guy seated in front of me who, throughout one performance, was drumming his fingers and shaking his leg and head up and down and sideways. He looked as though he was enjoying the music tremendously, and looking at him made me marvel at how different people are, to have someone who enjoys the jazz fusion thing so much and to have me behind him trying to make sense of it all.
Sunday saw another trip to Mosaic again, this time for some free indie music, no much comments there. I would love to go down every evening this week but I've got a test this Thursday. Since when was a test more important than free music? I'm not sure. I'm not sure. But I should be down most days from Thursday to Sunday.
***
Recent mail circulated to students asking for donations to help some fellow undergraduate pay her medical bills made me agitated. This student suffers from a type of blood cancer that may cause her blood marrow to malfunction and may damage other organs as well. Her medical expenses are estimated to be around $400,000 and her family's monthly income is $400.
In the email there was mention of her being on the dean's list several times, as well as her being an active student leader. I wonder how this is relevant to a potential donor in the first place. The underlying meaning seems to be that this student is an outstanding one whose loss would be regretted.
There are some questions to ask here. Firstly, does that mean that the life of someone who is not on the dean's list, and not an active student leader, any less worth saving? Secondly, even if we take it that value to society is and should be a factor in our decision to help a person or not, why should being on the dean's list and being an active student leader be factored in into considering how much that person is valuable? In the first place I'm not even sure if being on the dean's list is a necessary or sufficient measure of one's intelligence, just as I'm not sure if being an active student leader is any indicator of one's moral character.
Besides, I believe there are many others both in and out of NUS that have led, and will continue leading, a life that has more pain and suffering than this student. In many of these cases a dollar spent helping them may be more cost-effective than every dollar spent helping this particular student. For $400,000 you can probably alleviate the problems of dozens of poor students who may be having their studies affected or who are suffering from severe illnesses, and still have leftover to improve the lives of dozens of handicapped people on the street. There are so many others out there who need help, if you want to help her, why not help the others? The only difference now is that her case is made known to us, but why should knowledge of one's case be any factor in considering how much to donate and to whom? If you wouldn't ordinarily donate $2 to the handicapped beggar on the street why donate to this student now? On the basis that she's on the dean's list? On the basis that she is young and promising? On the basis that an email was circulated to you?
Incidentally, this problem of knowledge is why I don't donate to beggars on the street. I may sympathise with the plight of a blind old woman selling tissue papers but there are so many others like her, why should I privilege her and not the others? My response is to not donate anything at all, to anyone. Now, you may think of that an irrational response, but allow me to point out that I feel worse when I donate to a random beggar than if I don't donate at all. I think of people whom I've left out, people who probably need that money more than that person does, and the only way out, for me at least, is to be consistent and not donate at all.
In the case of this NUS student, not only do I feel the need to not donate, I feel a strong sense of repulsion to the case. It smacks strongly of elitism and biased preferences.
45 Comments:
I conveyed your sentiments to a friend and he showed me this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite
*facepalm*
But to not donate to her on the basis of her being on the dean's list blah blah would be reverse discrimination. In a sense, it's not her fault that she's in university, is a student leader, on the dean's list or what not.
Yes there are alot of people who need help out there,and who don't get help simply because no attention is called to their case. That isn't a reason why you shouldn't help those who come within your view. Sure, an individual may be able to help only a limited few. But if many many individuals help the people within their view, that contributes to a whole lot of people being helped. It's only when everyone says, aiyah, "why should I privilege one person and not the others?" that nobody gets helped.
Even if you don't donate to every poor soul who comes along the way-- when you donate, you've helped one person in some way. And it may have meant alot to that person. We may have the tendency to think of people as abstract concepts-- them-- the poor-- the needy-- I should help all or none-- but they are living individuals. Perhaps it's not appropriate to have a logical rationalization for everything. Sometimes the heart must be used...? And the heart has to be used, if you try putting yourself in an individual's shoes....like that nus girl who has leukemia. don't think of her as some smart-ass dean's lister person. imagine someone you care being in her position. and you don't have enough money to save his/her life. then imagine how you would feel if someone told you he doesn't want to donate because: "why should I privilege her and not the others?"
not sure u r left or right brain: u love musice but no emotional; u r rational but dont like administraion.....based on Herrmann Brain Dominance
Firstly, does that mean that the life of someone who is not on the dean's list, and not an active student leader, any less worth saving? Secondly, even if we take it that value to society is and should be a factor in our decision to help a person or not, why should being on the dean's list and being an active student leader be factored in into considering how much that person is valuable?
I was thinking about that question too.
Hm...I think the email was an attempt to get people to donate, not to win over a philosophical argument about donating.
The part about her was probably to paint her in a light such that she would seem sociable, rather than say, being a social hermit. Since the youth culture in Singapore currently idolizes this kind of sociable, outgoing people, they probably hope to show that she would be the kind of nice, friendly and hardworking person who mingles with crowd (as opposed to a foreign student who came just to study and then leave without reciprocating).
The key message in the email is thus: "she's a nice person, and she's one of you. Therefore you should help her." And this group of 'you' is NUS students, whom the advertisers think would identify with the outgoing, etc etc description.
The construct of the email, I would say, is an advertising decision. No advertisement that I know of is unbiased.
Aquila
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hi, Aquila's position sounds pretty plausible to me. However, since Aquila mentioned "... as opposed to a foreign student who came just to study and then leave without reciprocating", I'd like to point out that this leukemia-stricken student is a foreigner from China. So I'm really not sure if she'll reciprocate. Anyway, if you genuinely want to help someone, I guess the probability of reciprocation shouldn't even be in the equation.
But, as Aquila pointed out, the advertisement was meant for NUS students (most of whom are pragmatic Singaporeans), so perhaps it was indeed necessary to portray this girl in a light that would appeal to most of the targeted audience. And since most Singaporean students are obsessed about grades, making known the fact that she is a Dean's List student would definitely bolster her chances of raising funds. On the other hand, it also alienates students like SirWhale, fishy! and myself.
By the way I happen to be very indifferent towards extremely outgoing people. And if she's the type who'd volunteer for leadership positions in varsity orientation programmes, then all the more she's not the kind of person I would admire. But then again, it's just me; I'm weird; and I guess even the best advertisement in the world has had some success in getting on people's nerves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I was pretty pissed when i read the email as well, because of the dean's list bit, and because i also don't like outgoing leadership-ish kind of people. But i agree with aquila. yes, it's a lousy advert. though i felt that just because i don't like the advert/ outgoing leadership-ish people in general, doesn't mean i should abstain from helping the person.
aiya, anyway think we all have our own opinions and wouldn't agree, no matter how much we debate. =.="
Personally, if I want to do charity work, I'd rather contribute to great causes. E.g. I'd rather donate to some research institution trying to find a cure for AIDS and etc., instead of donating to this girl.
The Great Owl, I'm asking this out of curiousity. How much money have you donated to this leukemia-stricken girl?
Ehm, I will probably donate to both..? I donated $10.
I'm not sure what the point is over the advertisment. I know it is an advertisment..So? If anything, I'm interested to know why the president of the students' union sent that email to help that particular student, but not others. Maybe it is because she is the vice chairperson of NUS students' union welfare blah blah? In other words, elitism. This may be an advertisment, and an advertisment may be biased in nature, but I'm not sure if the president of the students union should be biased himself.
I'm sure there are lots of students who need help out there. If I am going to donate to this girl and I have never donated to other students, it means that the determining factor of whom I donate to seems to be based on pure chance.
Why is this a problem? Philosophical justification aside, this is a problem because my resources are finite. For every dollar I donate to a person, another person receives one dollar less. Naturally I would want to ensure that my donations are put to near the best possible use.
Having established that, let's consider the case where I see a pitiful beggar on the street. Now, I want to donate some money to him or her, but 2 things are stopping me. (1) I am not sure what he or she is going to do with my $2. Maybe he or she will use it to buy 4D instead of a meal? (2) There could be someone who needs the money more than him or her. Remember: my resources are finite. For every 1 dollar I give to someone, another person receives 1 dollar less.
The same goes for the case of this NUS student. Look: they're raising $400,000 for one person. Firstly, we are not even sure what her chances of a successful recovery are. What if we realise that upon giving her a $400,000 treatment she has only a 70% chance to live? Secondly, $400,000 is a lot for one person. Like I said, I am sure there are other people who are facing severe health or family issues. I am not sure if $400,000 spent on this 1 student is really better than spending $20,000 to help 20 others.
Regarding the abstract/individual distinction, it is precisely that I don't view the needy as an abstract concept that is why I am not donating. If I view them as an abstract entity, it really doesn't matter whether I donate to this beggar or the next -they are all generic. On the other hand, I think of them as living individuals - which is why I need to discriminate between them to decide who needs the help more, and who will utilise that help effectively for his or her well-being. That is, not spending the money to bet on soccer or buy a can of beer.
In any case, one can point out that look, we can never have access to the kind of information I need to determine who the best candidates for receiving donations are. If I am going to always require so much information then I will never donate to the needy. That is actually true to a large extent, and that is the basis of my principle of inaction, which from the blog post should better be qualified as: I will never donate to anyone, until I am reasonably assured that the money can not be better spent on someone else who needs the money too. Why do I have this principle of inaction? Because, I emphasise: for every one dollar I spend on a person, another person receives one dollar less.
This is precisely why I would, like Miao, contribute to 'great causes'. I rather accumulate all the $2 I give to random beggars I meet and donate them to, say, a research or welfare institution. (Side note: Assuming the government is doing its job we are already donating to the needy everytime we pay taxes.) Also, I am aware that even when it comes to donating money to institutions, I may not be reasonably assured that the money is put to good use. This is, of course, why transparency is always encouraged and appreciated, and in the case where I am still not assured, then I simply do not donate.
Anyway, to anonymous, does listening to music have a link to willingness to donate money? If I listen to music, maybe I am an emotional person. If I am an emotional person, maybe I empathise with people more, but I fail to see how empathising with people necessarily leads one to donate money to individuals.
In sum, I will not donate because of 3 main reasons. 1) I don't like the advertisment. 2) I feel wrong donating to someone on the basis of chance. We can ignore these 2 reasons but the main issue is the third argument, which is:
(1) If I am not sure my donation will be put to good use, I will not donate.
(2) I am not sure my donation will be put to good use.
------------
THEREFORE: I will not donate.
I do find it funny such an email can evoke different reactions from people
In response to The Great Owl's comment that "Ehm, I will probably donate to both..?", I was about to say that I only have finite resources and therefore I have my own priorities when it comes to donations, but SirWhale has beaten me to it.
Even a rich person like Bill Gates himself ensures that his wealth is not under-utilised by setting up research institutions rather than just distributing it among the African poor, because being an intelligent person he knows that direct distribution is not going to serve humanity at all in the long run, so even though he has enough resources to "donate to both" research organisations and needy individuals, he chooses to concentrate all his money on the former. (A few years ago, it was calculated that he had enough riches to give everyone in the world USD15 each while still having USD5m left over for himself.) Making donations to individuals does not make the most efficient use of one's money - in an institution (which is reasonably transparent), efforts are coordinated and consolidated, which would produce more significant results. Donating $2 to a beggar just doesn't generate long-term benefits.
I agree essentially with SirWhale's principle on donations. If I am going to sacrifice a dollar naturally I would want to ensure that the most is being gained out of it, and that it is being used properly. And, by the way, those who donate money to beggars are quite silly; buying them a meal is almost always better than giving them money - I've actually seen beggars drinking beer and smoking cigarettes in kopitiams before.
And, SirWhale, of course the president of the Students' Union should be biased! His act is in line with the values endorsed by this country - to see people as human capital and not humans. So the fact that this girl is often on the Dean's List makes a very crucial difference.
Hm...actually I think the main point I was trying to raise was, the email was meant to convert (induce) people who will donate to donate to this student. It probably wasn't intended to convert people who will not donate to a particular individual under any circumstances (i.e SirWhale).
It might be a bad advert for some of us, but then NUS has quite a big population, and those who are not converted might be the minority, regardless of principles of equality or effectiveness. People do not donate on principles (most people at least, I presume), but on emotional induction.
In some ways, it is an economic transaction. Donating returns an emotional satisfaction of fulfilling a good deed. Most people don't go deeper into the details of equality or effectiveness, as I mentioned earlier. Therefore the greater the emotional attachment or identification with the subject, the greater the emotional satisfaction.
On the whole I think we are talking about two things: 1) Why they crafted the email the way they did 2) the rationality of donating to this person as opposed to something more universal.
For the first, I think its quite clear. Advertisements target certain sections. Perhaps an email that professed the non-outstanding nature of this student might appeal to some of us, it might not appeal to the rest. Just like the Yeos advert disgusted some younger couples, older couples found it relevant.
As for the NUS student president, I guess he responded probably because she requested help (or others told him of her plight). There probably are other NUS students who need help, but perhaps they did not turn to the student president for help. In addition, probably the president put this on priority as it is a 'life and death' issue, which probably sounds more serious than other issues. After all, how do you reject someone who told you he/she will die unless you help? (especially when you're a 20-something year old, and the student president)
As for 2), I don't think its an issue the senders of the email would consider. It is a question pertaining more to the donors than the inducers.
Anyway just for sake of interest: if I get cancer (choy!) and don't have money to treat it, will you donate some money to me? (and send emails to your friends to raise $400,000?)
Aquila
to Miao:
"Finite resources" is why I don't donate my entire life savings to the leukemia-girl, but only $10. I donate small amounts to causes that appeal to me, be it for AIDS (for eg), or the girl, so I still have resources left. And no, I don't donate to beggars either.
anyway, just curious Miao, is your conclusion like SirWhale's as well? That even though (as he has elaborated in a detailed fashion) he may have a hierarchy of priorities, his bottomline is that he will not donate to any...?
also like Aquila, I do believe that the president of the student union (as smug-faced/elitist/ punchable as his photo in the email looks)will actually send a mass email out too, if someone who wasn't on the dean's list or a student leader but dying at any rate, asked him for help.
anyway, to sirwhale:
I conveyed to my friend your argument, and this was her response: "his argument, i'd say willingly, was quite nuanced and well-argued.on a philosophical note, i fully agree with him. on the humane side, i think i'll still make the trip to arts later to donate."
Which also reminded me about what one of my lit tutorial mates said during tutorial....he said, "My opinion is that, morality is not about a set of definite principles....it's about recognizing the humanity behind [it]..."
hmm. i guess my friend effectively summarized how i feel. and i guess i ascribe to my lit tutorial mate's form of morality as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
music wld make one more emotional, and emotional wld make one more empathising, and empathising wld make one more willing to give. believe u r more mind over heart and when come to decision making, u wld be taking a longer time as left and right brain is arguing or sending signal to and back. no right or wrong but just an observation and doing my research.
To The Great Owl, when I speak of "finite resources", I mean that if, say, I only have $50 to donate, instead of splitting it 50%-50% between a (reasonably trustworthy/transparent/efficient) welfare/research institution and a needy individual, I'd just donate the entire sum to the former. If I have so much money (i.e. close to an infinite amount of resources) that I can sufficiently fund all the welfare/research organisations in the world and still have remaining cash to donate, then I'll consider individual cases, but even then I will subject such appeals for help to a very strict standard of scrutiny - i.e., chances are, I still will not donate $400k to this leukemia-stricken girl since it is my belief that this same amount of money can save many others who are in more dire straits. Here I evoke the utilitarian principle - each to count for one, and no one to count for more than one. (This is a basic tenet of utilitarianism with which I agree, because its belief in equality squares with my own moral conviction.) Like SirWhale has pointed out, unless I can be sure that my money will be put to efficient use, I am not willing to sacrifice anything.
In general I do not buy tissue paper from old grandmothers and etc. as well (unless I happen to need tissue paper and the most convenient way of procuring some tissue paper is to directly purchase from them). I echo SirWhale's decision in not donating to handicapped people/beggars on the streets at all. Like SirWhale pointed out, if the government is doing a good job, such people wouldn't even be loitering around in the first place - by paying taxes, we've already contributed our part. We shouldn't be expected to compensate for the government's mismanagement of funds by forking out even more money to do the job it's supposed to do.
Dear Great Owl, your latest comment has made me very riled up. I conveyed to my friend your argument, and this was her response: "his argument, i'd say willingly, was quite nuanced and well-argued.on a philosophical note, i fully agree with him. on the humane side, i think i'll still make the trip to arts later to donate." So what is the underlying accusation? That people like SirWhale and myself, who choose not to donate because this girl does not feature on our list of priorities, are inhumane? Why is there even an assumption that there must necessarily be an irreconcilable dichotomy between being philosophical and being humane? It is our principles which tell us that this leukemia-stricken girl should not be favoured when it comes to making donations, and how is acting in line with our principles "inhumane", given that our principles are derived from humane considerations in the first place? Would your friend like it if I say that she is irrational and short-sighted, because any amount of cash that she's going to donate to this Dean's Lister would be better utilised if it goes to an African kid who doesn't even have 3 meals to eat everyday, or if it goes to building schools in Szechuan? Would she like it if I say that she is inhumane, because $10 to this leukemia-stricken girl can actually benefit 20 African children, and she has chosen to save one while letting 20 others die? If I make such a criticism, I would not be very fair towards your friend - and neither is her comment fair towards us.
Regarding the other offensive (to me) comment you posted, "My opinion is that, morality is not about a set of definite principles....it's about recognizing the humanity behind [it]..." Firstly, I would like to point out that I adopt a deontological view when it comes to morality, and so I disagree with the statement that there are no objective principles that could illustrate morality. Even if you are a non-cognitivist when it comes to morality, it is actually not mutually exclusive with evoking supplementary, normative principles to judge which act deserves more attention than others in cases towards which you feel equally strong emotions - i.e. it is not contradictory with choosing to reserve all your money for organisations and not for needy individuals, even when both cases inspire the same reaction from you. But I leave this point aside. Again there seems to be an implicit assumption that by subscribing to principles of morality, one necessarily neglects the 'humanity' part of it. I would like to say that it is precisely because I recognise the humanity behind kindness and charity, that I choose to save up any amount of money that I might have given to this Dean's Lister, and give it in a lump sum to organisations that advance more worthy causes in future (e.g., wildlife conservation, promotion of human rights and gender equality, etc., which I feel really strongly about). Between a noble cause (possible liberation of the oppressed peoples around the world) and a trivial one (spending $400k on a girl who may not even contribute to humanity in future), which would I choose? Naturally the former.
(P.S. You might want to defend your friends by saying that they were not making any insinuations, but their statements were probably driven by an underlying attitude of which they themselves may not even be aware. In any case I give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't mean to sound sanctimonious.)
And anyway, Anonymous, being emotional doesn't necessarily make one more empathising. One can be emotional in an egocentric way.
To AQUILA: It really depends doesn't it. If $400,000 is going to give you only a 10% chance of survival at best I don't think I'm going to help much. In fact you yourself probably wouldn't want your friends and family to go to extreme lengths to raise the $400,000 for you. It also depends on whether the $400,000 can be successfully raised. If the full treatment requires $400,000 and if $100,000 can only let you live 2 days more I don't think I would bother either, given limited resources. Maybe buy KFC and bring laptop for you to play COH can already? Likewise if I were the victim, I don't expect anyone to waste resources on myself, even if it's just sending emails.
To THE GREAT OWL: Just to make things clear, finite resources doesn't mean you have resources leftover for yourself. It just means that whenever you give X amount to someone, someone else receives X amount less. So even if $10 doesn't make you bankrupt it should be noted that someone who needs, and who deserves, that $10 more does not get it. If you say that if you meet such a 2nd person, then you still would donate $10 as you did with the first case; then we should note that it is also the case that you could have donated $20 to the second case, who as stipulated needs and deserves the help more.
Or to look at things in a different way: thousands of people suffer from cancer everyday. You donated $10 to one when you're not even sure of what her chances of recovery are. Why did you donate to that 1 person? Because you felt for that advertisment. In other words, the basis on which you donated is due to the appeal of the advertisment. Assuming that advertisments can all represent their cancer subjects in a similar manner, the basis on which you donated can be further reduced to be the order in which you see those advertisments, because you wouldn't actively donate to the cancer victims on a normal day.
In other words, if you see an advertisment for victims A B and C, you would donate to them and not D E F G H...
AQUILA has pointed out that the donation is essentially an economic transaction. Ie You pay, and you gain a certain feeling. I agree, so as long as you will gain some emotional satisfaction from donating to A, there's nothing wrong as it is. We don't need to consider things like whether B is a more deserving recipient. I am fine with this position insofar as the motivation behind you donating is to satisfy some feeling of empathy toward the person being advertised. However, if the motivation of you donating is that you want to help the needy, then donating on the basis of the order of advertisments should not be what you are doing. This is because, given limited resources, a better way to help the needy is to discriminate them upon the order of need and the benefits that will be gained, as well as the effectiveness of the donation. You won't want to give $10 to pay for a $400,000 treatment that may give only a 50% chance for survival (and maybe give alot of recurring side effects even if the victim survives), when there may be a case where someone else needs money for a $100,000 treatment that will give him/her a 80% chance of survival.
We can consider an analogous case. Let's say you see an advertisment advertising sports shoes. You like the ad, you splash money to buy that pair of shoes. No one can criticise you of doing so, even if that pair of shoes is objectively inferior to others. To you it is a reasonable buy, because you identify strongly with the pair of shoes in the ad, and you gain alot utility just by wearing it as the way the model had in the ad. But what if you want to buy a pair of sports shoes, because you want to improve your running performance? Now, we would probably think that it is irrational that you would succumb to that advertisment and buy it solely because you like it a lot. The pair of shoes that you like a lot may not improve your running performance much, and that is your primary objective. (We note that since we have limited resources, buying that pair of advertised shoes restricts your buying options for another performance-orientated pair of shoes) In this case, and I believe many of us in similar cases would do it, the way to go about doing things is to do a reasonable amount of research first, then make the purchase, instead of simply relying on the advertisment.
Now a possible objection is that in the case of donations, the sum is just $2 or $10. To do research for such tiny sums may not be so worthwhile. This leads precisely to my principle of inaction as mentioned above. Note too that for every $1 you donate, someone else, be it in the present or the future, loses out on that $1.
And......What's all this talk about humanity? I don't want to open another can of worms, but isn't humanity as much about thought as it is about compassion for others, etc etc? Can I suggest that my principle of inaction incorporates both, and is therefore possibly more humane than donating based on compassion alone?
there r 4 types of ppl:
- donate to self n donate to others
- donate to self but dont donate to others
- dont donate to self but donate to others
- dont donate to self n dont donate to others
*donate to self means buying things 4 self
Just to make things clear, finite resources doesn't mean you have resources leftover for yourself. It just means that whenever you give X amount to someone, someone else receives X amount less. So even if $10 doesn't make you bankrupt it should be noted that someone who needs, and who deserves, that $10 more does not get it. If you say that if you meet such a 2nd person, then you still would donate $10 as you did with the first case; then we should note that it is also the case that you could have donated $20 to the second case, who as stipulated needs and deserves the help more.
Nice clarification there. SirWhale and I meant the same thing by 'finite resources'.
"In any case, one can point out that look, we can never have access to the kind of information I need to determine who the best candidates for receiving donations are. If I am going to always require so much information then I will never donate to the needy. That is actually true to a large extent, and that is the basis of my principle of inaction, which from the blog post should better be qualified as: I will never donate to anyone, until I am reasonably assured that the money can not be better spent on someone else who needs the money too. Why do I have this principle of inaction? Because, I emphasise: for every one dollar I spend on a person, another person receives one dollar less."
Let’s assume that giving a dollar to the person who needs it the most gives a utility value of 1, and giving to a person who might not need gives the utility value of less than 1. If every individual has the line of thinking that they need to maximize the utility value of their donation, in a world where all information is available certainly such principle will end up in the most socially efficient way. This is definitely not the case. In the absence of information, by not donating at all, it will lead to the most socially inefficient outcome. However, if all individual decides just to donate at random, without considering whether they are helping the one who needs it the most it will still lead to a better outcome.
The point being resources are mere resources. You might not be able to use them in the most efficient manner, but not using them at all amounts to wastage and there’s no utility to be derived at all.
I disagree with the analysis provided above.
Firstly, even if I don't donate anything at all, the money is still with me. If the money is still with me, I can derive utility from it.
Secondly, giving money to random people may actually lead to negative utility. This is because it means people who don't deserve the money gets it, for example beggars who are alcoholics or gamblers. While these beggars derive utility from their habits, their family members may be hurt in the process.
Thirdly, if I understand SirWhale's so-called principle of inaction correctly, it doesn't mean he will never donate. That is the assumption you are making. I think rather that he means he will only accumulate resources and spend it on the supposedly more efficient outlets. The more he spends on random outlets, the less he can spend on the efficient ones, and the latter are by definition better than the former.
Anonymous @ 5.41pm: Touché.
I disagree with the analysis provided above.
“Firstly, even if I don't donate anything at all, the money is still with me. If the money is still with me, I can derive utility from it.
It’s fair enough if we are bringing individual utility into question, I believe it is valid and what we subconsciously doing when we are making the decision to donate or not. However, I’d like to point out that the original argument for not donating lies on the premise that there might be someone else more deserving of the donation out there, therefore it is better to nothing. I find this argument is flawed because the decision to donate should not be based on the possibilities of failing to help the most deserving person but on whether you think that the person helped is deserving. I believe that a principle of inaction should be based on “for every one dollar I spend on a person, I will receive a dollar less" mentality Instead of “for every one dollar I spend on a person, another person receives one dollar less." Yes, the former might sounds harsher compared to the latter but I believe it is a more rational approach.
“Secondly, giving money to random people may actually lead to negative utility. This is because it means people who don't deserve the money gets it, for example beggars who are alcoholics or gamblers. While these beggars derive utility from their habits, their family members may be hurt in the process. “
Yes, this is a possibility. However it is just as likely that the person who deserves the money gets it. In the absence of any empirical data it’s impossible to come to a conclusion how they might tilt to one way or the other.
Thirdly, if I understand SirWhale's so-called principle of inaction correctly, it doesn't mean he will never donate. That is the assumption you are making. I think rather that he means he will only accumulate resources and spend it on the supposedly more efficient outlets. The more he spends on random outlets, the less he can spend on the efficient ones, and the latter are by definition better than the former.”
SirWhale stated that his principle of inaction lies on the basis that the dollar that he donates might not go to the most deserving, and consequently the most deserving will receive a dollar less. It is impossible to objectively determine that the person is the most deserving, thus by logic and not by assumption, if the principle is held no donation will be made.
Hm...er...okay. Just for the sake of interest, but what if it isn't me? Say its someone closer or something. Will you pay $400,000 for 10% chance for that loved one to live?
Anyway I agree with SirWhale and Miao's analysis. I won't mind donating to a beggar or etc at times though, since I don't really put my money to much use anyway (at least for now). In the selfish sense, I won't mind the economic satisfaction from that inefficient transaction. I won't like to go through 27 posts to reassure myself of my position in the event that I refuse to donate to someone too (its more convenient to just donate sometimes).
Things in the world happen quite arbitrarily anyway, so who knows what that donation might spell, out of all rational calculations. I don't mind littering (donating to the wrong person) once in a while in this sense. Perhaps I'll help the right person and hit the jackpot.
Aquila
......Gosh. 29 (long comments).
Hmm....one point to raise here: "Note too that for every $1 you donate, someone else, be it in the present or the future, loses out on that $1." The thing is, after all that long rationalization, wasn't the underlying conclusion that you wouldn't donate at all to any cause? So I guess, no needy actually loses out?
I don't see donating as a transaction. I donate because I want to help. I am totally fine with it if someone, like Miao, thinks that donating money to wildlife etc is much more meaningful. We all have different causes we feel for, and I respect that. What is really riling me here is, that after all these long, elaborate expositions about why donating $10 to one cause = less $10 for another cause blah blah blah-- you conclude in the end that you should not do anything for any cause, because that somehow turns to be the most brilliantly moral and humane conclusion-- and your actions actually then mirror that conclusion. In that case, you may be brilliantly intellectual, but I wouldn't respect you for it. I respect deeds, not empty talk, no matter how intelligent it sounds. Therefore the only thing I was interested in asking Miao was: would she donate, to those greater causes that she spoke of? Or was her conclusion like Kenneth's, that ultimately, she would not donate to any cause at all?
I'm quite tired of arguing about this anyway. I don't mind being seen as foolish/irrational/simpleton, but I'll continue supporting whatever causes I feel like supporting. I don't feel the need to write long, intellectual essays on why I would donate $10 to a girl, because after all that $10 would probably just have been spent 2.5 cups of coffee. And I don't see any of us writing long, intellectual essays on the morality behind spending $10 on 2.5 cups of coffee, when it apparently means $10 lesser for someone else.
P.S And this really is irrelevant, but please do address me in future as owl (capitalized or otherwise), instead of The Great Owl, which was a nick written out of jest.
Dear Owl,
You said: you conclude in the end that you should not do anything for any cause, because that somehow turns to be the most brilliantly moral and humane conclusion. There is no need to be riled up. If you actually read carefully all my comments (or SirWhale's), you'd realise that I lay no claim as to whether my standards are ideal models for emulation. And your accusation that people who are motivated by such rationalisations will not "do anything for any cause" is quite baseless in this case, because SirWhale and I have repeatedly stressed that the principle of inaction is to be employed till a compelling case appears which demands deviation from this principle.
You asked: would she donate, to those greater causes that she spoke of? Or was her conclusion like Kenneth's, that ultimately, she would not donate to any cause at all?
Firstly, SirWhale did not say that he wouldn't donate to any cause at all. In fact, he explicitly said that he would prefer to donate to 'great causes' than to needy individuals, and even when it comes to 'great causes' he would be mindful about how his money is going to be spent by the organisation processing his donation. So he is consistent in maintaining his principle of inaction. At one point he also clarified that he would donate insofar as he can be 'reasonably assured' that his money would be put to good use. So inasmuch as the minimum level of efficiency and transparency required by him is satisfied, naturally he would not mind sparing some cash for charitable purposes.
Secondly, I assure you that if I have sufficient resources to make a difference, I would definitely donate to the greater causes which I previously mentioned. I am as aware as you are that talk is cheap, and it is easy to just spew rhetoric. No one can realistically hope to command respect just by spouting a few words. It just so happens that right now I do not have adequate money to make contributions that would effect changes on a significant scale - and this is not an excuse. Certain chariable projects require very high start-up costs. Perhaps you would ask, "Since you are not donating to any charitable organisation now, why not spare some money for this leukemia-stricken girl?" If so, then I would answer, "Since you have extra cash now, why not spend everything instead of saving it?" The rationale is the same. You save money, and I refrain from donating to this Dean's Lister, because we both feel that there is a very likely chance that this amount of money would be put to better uses in future. Instead of giving separate amounts of $2 to, say, different patients of illnesses that have no cure (but which chemotherapy can temporarily alleviate), I'd rather collate all the money and perhaps set up a scholarship or a research fund in future - and the award will go to any doctor who is willing and able to come up with a permanent cure for any hitherto incurable disease.
No one is accusing you of being silly or gullible or irrational. I've already mentioned that it would not be fair for anyone to level such a charge against you (or your friend).
I don't see any of us writing long, intellectual essays on the morality behind spending $10 on 2.5 cups of coffee, when it apparently means $10 lesser for someone else.
No one bothers to discuss this because no person would say that, just by drinking coffee, one is committing evil. (And if anyone says that to you, you should proceed to order a cup of Kopi Lua, which is the most expensive type of coffee in the world, and savour it slowly in front of him so that fumes start rising from his scalp.) When there are no differences in opinions there is nothing to talk about. What makes this current discussion interesting is our different views on the issue. Some, like myself, prefer to contribute to causes that would generate long-term advantages, whereas others, like you, prefer to help as much as you are able to in the present. (In case you think that I'm passing some judgment, I'd like to say that I am not.)
-
Dear Anonymous @ 8.26p.m.,
Actually I believe that SirWhale is really making a weaker claim with his principle of inaction. Instead of viewing a potential beneficiary as deserving or otherwise, I suppose he is probably more concerned about the quality and quantity of the benefits that would be generated from his donations. So his principle is not patient-centric ('patient' as in a moral patient) but cause-centric. After all, for donations that would benefit future generations which have yet to come into existence, there are no specific individuals who can be subjected to any examination yet. So I repeat that, inasmuch as he (and people like him who adopt the same rationalisations) can be reasonably assured that his money can be put to good use (one can set one's own definition of 'good' - e.g., one may decide making certain donations is a 'good' decision because these donations have more potential to give rise to returns in the long run, etc.), i.e., inasmuch as some minimum pre-requisites are met, he would donate. So having perfect information is not necessary.
I propose here, without his express permission, to reformulate the principle of inaction: instead of saying that "for every one dollar I spend on a person, another person receives one dollar less", it might be more appropriate to say that "for every dollar I spend on a cause, another cause receives one dollar less." While it might be problematic to decide which person is deserving (and if we adopt a patient-centric view, it probably doesn't even make sense to talk about long-term causes which would only come to fruition in the future when everyone in the current generation may already be dead, since it wouldn't be very convincing to speak of as-of-now non-existent persons as deserving or otherwise), it is arguably less contentious to say that there are at least some objective ways to measure which causes have more promising long-term rewards (and a cause-centric viewpoint doesn't entail all those problems about the plausbility of seeing people in future generations as deserving or undeserving, since they don't even exist yet). And any cause that meets the minimum requirement stipulated by the donor is a deserving cause.
Given the reformulated (without SirWhale's persmission, I emphasise - so let's call it my principle in case he finds it so embarrassing that he doesn't want ownership over it) principle above, it does not rule out the possibility of making donations at all. Maybe one has so much money that these excesses no longer generate much utility for one, and one might decide to just make monetary contributions to those who need financial aid, since it would generate more utility. Since you brought up the issue of rationality, in contemplating which causes to donate to, I would deem it rational - and you probably wouldn't disagree, I hope - to withhold it from certain beneficiaries in favour of other beneficiaries - i.e., to withhold it from causes that do not fit with one's definition of 'good' in favour of those which do. Again, it is important to stress that perfect information is not necessary (neither is it realistic).
And in the case in which one is so altruistic that one chooses to give away money even though one can still derive utility from it, it is also rational (and even natural) to think that it is better and more worthwhile to donate to causes that promise to give rise to more returns, because one wouldn't want to regret having made sacrifices for trivial causes.
Hope I make sense - it's already 1.40a.m. Thanks everyone for this stimulating discussion.
Good night!
Ok, thanks for the clarification. In that case I'm fine with what you've said.
Good night !
Owl
she should go back china for treatment and her medical bill would be cheaper.
and also probably increase her chances of dying because china's healthcare system not that good. i think.
don't look down on them. its tcm has longer histry than western.
In spite of TCM's merits, China in general is very notorious for its poor hygiene and substandard (medical) products...
I pass money only to people on streets who play the harmonica.
woo go me.
oh can you not talk about your ipod like that again? gollum springs to mind.
Don't think so. Gollum's condition is real, mine is fake, intended only to achieve some effect on people who read it. Then again, what if my condition is real and I'm passing it off as a fake condition intended only to achieve some effect on people who read it..Hm..
Anyway, for those who are wondering, I'm still not convinced why it is all right to donate to this student. I don't have so much time to write a lengthy response even though I already got the outline, because 1) I don't have so much time and 2) the following fundamental objection has still not been satisfactorily replied to: why are we giving this student $400,000 when we don't even know what are her chances of survival? What if it's 25%? What if the treatment doesn't entail killing the cancer but minimising the effects it has, such that even if she lives, there will be recurrent effects on her health? Most people would probably donate without getting to know her condition better, which is ironic if you ask me.
I don't think there is a need to talk about other, more sophisticated arguments when this fundamental common-sense objection is not out of the way.
would you donate to her or her family if her case was reported early? how do we compare these 2 cases?
""The teenager who was found dead at her home in Woodlands in the wee hours of Thursday has been described by friends as a "good girl" and fillial daughter", according to a report in Wanbao.
In order to help her mother pay for her medication to help put food on the table, the girl often worked at a fast-food restaurant during the holidays.
14-year-old Eunice Chew Li Xin is alleged to have been stabbed by her 51-year-old mother, Goh Hai Eng.
Friends of the Pei Cai secondary school student told reporters from the Chinese paper that they knew the victim's family was not well-to-do.
Mum had not eaten for four days before incident
A day before the incident, Eunice had told her 16-year-old boyfriend, Valentino Tan, that her mother had not eaten for four days. The girl also told him that she did not have money to buy food back for her mother.
The boy told reporters that on Wednesday, the both of them and a group of friends had gone to Changi airport for a dance event, before gathering back at his home.
At the time, Eunice expressed her worry about her mother.
He said: "She told me she had spent all her money, but was too embarrassed to borrow from us. In the end when she went home, she didn't have money to buy food for her mother."
The boy, who also got to know the girl while working at the fast food restaurant, said he would frequently treat her to meals as he knew about her family background.
"That night, I sent her to the MRT at about 10pm. She messaged me an hour later to wish me goodnight. That was the last time I heard from her..."
Teen was once threatened with a knife
Another friend of Eunice revealed to reporters from Wanbao that the girl had complained to her several times that someone was threatening to kill her with a knife.
She said the teen was so scared by the threats that she ended up staying at her home for 5 days.
The two got to know each other when they were working together at a fast-food restaurant and became good friends.
The friend said: "Although my father was sympathetic towards her situation, he felt it wasn't appropriate for her to continue living here, and persuaded her to return home."
Family background "complicated"
According to a 16-year-old friend of Eunice who called the Wanbao hotline, the girl's family background was "complicated".
Eunice's parents had divorced 3 years ago.
Due to her mother's mental illness, Goh was unable to work, and the family relied on Eunice's elder sister's meagre salary from working at a petrol station to make ends meet.
"In order to lighten her sister's burden, she would work at a fast-food restaurant during the holidays, and would use the money to pay for her mother's medication and food," said the friend, who also commented that the relationship between mother and daughter was "close".
It was reported in Wanbao that Eunice lived together with her mother, sister as well as her sister's few-month-old baby girl.
On occasions when her sister was busy with work, the teen would assume the role as "head of the household" - doing the household chores, as well as looking after her mother and baby niece.
When interviewed by Wanbao's reporters, a good friend from the same school as the teen described the teen as an easy-going person, someone who did not look like she had any troubles.
A group of them who were close to Eunice were devastated by the news of her death. Said her friend :"We were very sad and we all cried when we found out about it.""
I hope this does not devolve into a competition of who can cut and paste the worst sob story because I promise you I will flame anybody here who has the utter social grace of a duckweed.
During 1996- 2004 relative survival rates overall* were:
Acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL): 66.1 percent overall
(oh and in case anyone was wondering what the dubious-looking * refers to, it is:
* Treatment outcomes vary, even among patients with the same diagnosis. Individuals are encouraged to talk to their physicians for more information. In addition, these statistics may underestimate survival to a degree because they may be based on data that does not include outcomes of treatment with the most current options available. Newer agents and drug combinations, progress in stem cell transplantation, better supportive care and studies of new drugs in clinical trials are all contributing to improved outcomes and quality of life for people diagnosed with blood cancers.)
I hope it is realised that if my objection is people donating to a case without much knowledge of the circumstances of the case prior to the act of donation, then gaining knowledge after the act does not overcome that objection.
yes sirwhale, it is realised. just as info lah. =p since people keep wondering about the probability of her dying.
Post a Comment
<< Home