The Ethanol mistake...

[Jeff250]

Now, with that said... I'm an American, living in affluent Western culture. My wife and I give at least ten percent (the Christian 'tithe') of our income, but if we were to be completely honest, we could certainly give more and survive on much, much less. Of course, that would mean giving up our house for a lesser place, sacrificing the variety in our 'date nights', giving up my computer stuff and internet... but maybe we should.

Indeed. I have posted this in the past. But I am just as guilty of this as anyone.

[Will Robinson]

One thing that bothers me is if we are giving in excess of 100 Billion a year combined (all countries) WTF aren't these 3rd world countries not 1st world countries now? They have enough money...

Think about it. Ablout half of the world is third-world. if that's 3 billion people, that's 30 dollars a year of funding per capita. That's not enough.

$30/person/year... and many people in the U.S. believe that they "can't live on less than $30,000/year".

It's a very rough figure there, but he certainly makes a point, Merlin....

What point exactly does he make though?!?
Is the fact that we don't support peoples lives around the globe well enough so they get to live at the same standard we do, or any particular standard you might arrive at, proof that we have failed to do what we should?
It isn't charity if it is mandated and if it is mandated I'd like to know the justification for such a 'rule'!

By what rationale have you all determined those that have must give up their wealth until there are none that want?
I know it sounds like a nice warm and fuzzy Disney movie ending but is it really the right thing to make people do?

You can't fund a third world country until it is equal to a first world country, it isn't even close to possible!
Our wealth isn't money we stashed away, the money is merely a thing humans invented to make bartering easier. It isn't the money it is our resources and industrious nature and our education and intellect and ambition and the brilliant structure we chose to govern ourselves with that make us first world....counting the amount of money is simply a good way to measure our success compared to other first world producers.

Go throw billions at most third world countries and you won't improve the quality of life hardly at all for the lower class, you'll just strengthen and enrich the few warlords, dictators, armies, religious rulers etc. that are already at the top of those cultures!
that experiment has failed countless times! recently they had to sell off the housing that some California city built for their homeless. the feel-good theory was 'everyone deserves a house'...well the homeless didn't want the free housing! Some people want the life they have or are unwilling to change.

Protect them from slaughter, criminalize their torturers, fund their exposure to higher education and medicine is about the best you can do for many of them.
Do that and accept the fact that many of them get exactly the government/culture they ask for by their own actions/tradition/religion/etc. and you shouldn't try to change them!

[Tunnelcat]

The U.S. government gives billions to third world countries, but not usually for altruistic reasons. There is always something the U.S. wants in return for their money, like some natural resource that country possesses or some 'national security' disguised inane military scheme to go after a perceived enemy. On one hand, they give out money and say, \"look how kind hearted the U.S. is in helping our poor world neighbors here\" while the other hand is grabbing something from them for U.S. interests. The U.S. takes what it wants and cloaks it in sugar-coated goodness for the world masses. Then we wonder why the world doesn't like our foreign policy, or us for that matter.

[Jeff250]

It isn't charity if it is mandated and if it is mandated I'd like to know the justification for such a 'rule'!

1) I am less concerned about whether my actions constitute someone's abstract conception of "charity" and more concerned about helping to solve very real problems overseas, such as child hunger.

2) I'm not sure if large scale government aid is really a good idea either. Governments tend to give in the wrong ways, whereas individuals tend to give in the right ways. Maybe this means that governments shouldn't get involved. Or maybe this means we need to get governments involved in giving in the right ways. I'm not sure how, and I'm not one to know. But I think you'll agree that we still have an obligation as individuals to give.

Go throw billions at most third world countries and you won't improve the quality of life hardly at all for the lower class, you'll just strengthen and enrich the few warlords, dictators, armies, religious rulers etc. that are already at the top of those cultures!

This happens too often, but this only makes doing good more difficult, not impossible. Surely we don't mean to say that giving to the impoverished third world is impossible. We just have to give to the right organizations in the right ways. There are wrong ways to give, and there are right ways. (Politicians typically choose the wrong ways.)

the feel-good theory was 'everyone deserves a house'...well the homeless didn't want the free housing! Some people want the life they have or are unwilling to change.

This is a good reason not to give to many homeless, but it's not a good reason to not give to any charity, e.g. children don't choose to die from hunger.

You can't fund a third world country until it is equal to a first world country, it isn't even close to possible!

I think what Foil was saying, and certainly what I am saying, is that let's not be concerned so much with things on the macro scale, but as individuals, let's help individuals. If I drop $1000 on a computer, but I could have given this money to feed starving children, possibly saving someone's life, how can I morally justify this indulgence, when the money could have done so much more good elsewhere.

Moreover, I think that if there is any way we can fix governments into doing this on a large scale, then we need to pursue it.

[TIGERassault]

I partly agree with Will, just giving money to third-world countries isn't a good idea (doing so for second-world countries is different though). However, only a bad charity would do that. A good one would either use the money to buy food for the poor, buy livestock for the poor, pay for workers to contruct buildings or schools, etc. In other words, use the money for things that can't be abused or corrupt people.

I do understand that, he and I are getting rather personal on this. I have limited humour for people who put words in my mouth or take the meaning out of context.

Then don't leave your posts out for interpretation. For example, if you say something about gun control in America followed by rebelling against governments, the first and only thing that comes into my head is another American Revolution.

I am opposed to most of the aid that is given to ungrateful countries when so many people here need it also. The sheer magnitude of the mismanagement of the aid money is a very sore point with me as they demand more money from us.

And I still don't know where you get the impresson that those countries are ungrateful, that there's a lot of Americans living in third-world conditions, and most of all, that the poor are demanding things from your country when they don't even know it exists!


What country was it that you lost your job to anyway?

[Foil]

You can't fund a third world country until it is equal to a first world country, it isn't even close to possible!

Agreed. But I'm not talking about trying to make them "equal", I'm talking about the ethical obligation to help out of my own excess.

When the first-world person (i.e. me) has a surplus (i.e. $$ beyond my own necessities) that could help a third-world person survive, then there's definitely a moral reason for me to assist.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating communism (as in government-enforced "equality") here. I'm just trying to point out that the usual affluent-culture responses of "they're ungrateful", "it's their fault they're poor", "it's their government's fault", etc... are very poor excuses when it comes to ethics in the face of cases where people are literally starving and there are resources to help them.

[Spidey]

“I think what Foil was saying, and certainly what I am saying, is that let's not be concerned so much with things on the macro scale, but as individuals, let's help individuals. If I drop $1000 on a computer, but I could have given this money to feed starving children, possibly saving someone's life, how can I morally justify this indulgence, when the money could have done so much more good elsewhere.“

I don’t accept that guilt trip for one single second! That’s the same BS I here in this country, when they say “You can’t let the poor little children go hungry”…No! It’s not “me” letting the children go hungry, it’s the absent parent in most cases.

If I choose to help someone in need, that’s great…but don’t try to tell me it’s my responsibility.

[roid]

I forget what you guys are currently babbling on about. So here's some babbling that's ontopic for the thread:

climate campaigners are unwise to promote biofuels in a way that risks food supplies

that quote from the thread's OP is the gist of the matter.
From what i'm gathered over time, it's dumb to make Ethanol from traditional crops such as Corn. We should be concentrating on things like Celulosic Ethanol and ALGAE. Both are huge output technologies that are unattached to food crops.

Mr. Hartwig said oil companies and food manufacturers are behind the attempt to undercut ethanol. “There is a concerted misinformation campaign being put out there by those people who are threatened by ethanol’s growing prominence in the marketplace,”

that's interesting, i'd not heard that before. I guess it would make sense that there are some interests (ie: oil industry) involved in accelerating the poo-pooing of food crop ethanol - and perhaps trying to damage the entire ethanol industry in the process.
If they're right... and they do seem to be right, then we should take note. But do try to keep wary of their inevitable attempts to bring down all non-petrolium industries (ie: all their competition) in the process.

“We don’t see any evidence of the lack of availability of rice. There are no supply issues,”

Not so: Herald Tribune: As Australia dries, a global shortage of rice.
It's kinda dumb that Australia grew rice in the first place though, both Rice and Cotton are entirely unsuitable crops considering how scarce water is here. Yet we grow them both. I hope both those industries die in Australia, for the good of the land.
Austrlaian Rice production is now something like 2% of what it used to be. Coz climate change is causing droughts, we have a real water crisis.

[Foil]

[Note: This side-topic of philanthropy probably deserves its own thread. Mods?]

I don’t accept that guilt trip for one single second! That’s the same BS I here in this country, when they say “You can’t let the poor little children go hungry”…No! It’s not “me” letting the children go hungry, it’s the absent parent in most cases.

If I choose to help someone in need, that’s great…but don’t try to tell me it’s my responsibility.

You're quite correct that it's not "your fault" that kids are starving. You didn't cause it.

But so what? If you have resources to help, why should it matter?

Is "it's their parent/government/culture's fault" really a good excuse for apathy?

From my own basis of ethics as a Christian: If I am in a position where I could help without causing my own family to starve, there most certainly is some ethical obligation on my part. (Heck, one of the major themes of the Old Testament prophets was a condemnation of the Hebrews for not taking care of the orphans, widows, and sojourners among them).

If I were to ignore a known need when I could help out of my surplus/excess, then I've "missed the (ethical) boat". Of course, as an American who often falls for the "gotta have it" culture, I'm repeatedly guilty of this.

Our culture just about teaches us to ignore the needs of others in favor of our own wants... it's the "looking out for number one" (i.e. "I don't care about anyone else") ethic that is the moral "BS" in this thread.

[Spidey]

Well you see, the way I see charity is…it’s a personal thing…I make the decision to be charitable, once you or someone else makes that decision for me, it just becomes another duty, and ceases to be charity.

It then becomes nothing more that another tax.

Your last line does not apply to me, or anybody else I know.

[Jeff250]

Well you see, the way I see charity is…it’s a personal thing…I make the decision to be charitable, once you or someone else makes that decision for me, it just becomes another duty, and ceases to be charity.

Would you say that it's true or not true that we ought to give to charity?

I don't see any inconsistency in charity being a duty. There doesn't seem to be any such inconsistency with anything else in ethics, e.g. if we tell the truth out of duty, we are still practicing honesty. Practicing ethics is a duty.

And again, I am less concerned about whether my actions constitute an abstract conception of "charity" and more concerned about helping to solve very real problems, such as child hunger. Perhaps getting wrapped up in semantics is missing the point.

[Spidey]

Charity is not an ethic…charity is a value.

I say if you want to give to a charity that’s great, if you don’t then that’s ok too.

What gives you or anyone else the right to take the personal satisfaction out of helping others.

[Jeff250]

Charity is not an ethic…charity is a value.

I say if you want to give to a charity that’s great, if you don’t then that’s ok too.

Are you saying that charity is supererogatory? I mean, you can say that it is supererogatory, or you can say that charity is an optional value, or whatever. But I can't see how charity is relevantly different from something like honesty to justify any such distinction. Can't we apply whatever reasons we think that we ought to be honest to being charitable? Aren't being honest and being charitable good for the same reasons? They make people happy, they make God happy, etc. Maybe you have a different view on what actually makes things good to explain your position? But you need to justify your distinction here.

What gives you or anyone else the right to take the personal satisfaction out of helping others.

Being ethical need not be a miserable experience for you. But if it were the case that you ought to be charitable, wouldn't you still prefer knowing? So where's the harm in someone arguing for it?

[Spidey]

The difference I draw here is that ethics are directly related to morality and values are not.

From what you say the following conclusion can be drawn:

A person that does not give to charity is immoral (assuming they have the money) which I think is absolutely wrong.

No harm whatsoever in arguing for it, but when you infer that someone is “immoral” if they don’t then I have to draw the line.

I never said being ethical is a “miserable experience” why do people insist on putting words in my mouth? I just don’t get any personal satisfaction from being moral, it’s just the right thing to do. I do however get a great deal of personal satisfaction from behavior that I choose on my own.

BTW JFTR charity is one of my personal values, and I don’t do it because it’s expected of me or because it’s required of me either.

Nuff said

[roid]

you could think of mandated charity, ie: social welfare, as a preventative measure to protect society from catastrophy.

Much like we immunise the population and construct sewers to prevent fostering and spreading disease.

Impoverished areas foster all sorts of things that can damage the surrounding society.

Mandated Charity is NOT just for a society's morale (ie: so a society can feel good about itself, coz it's helping others) . It's preventing Blowback.
The problems you don't fix, can end up biting your ass. In the end it's best for everyone if everyone can be happy. Your neighbours too, not just you and your own.

Well - unless you want to nuke your problems. And i've seen plenty of idiots suggest it. A kindof \"feed the poor to the starving\" lulzworthy solution.

[Spidey]

You really seem to like lecturing people like they’re stupid.

[Jeff250]

The difference I draw here is that ethics are directly related to morality and values are not.

But you need to say why. How is being charitable relevantly different from something like being honest such that one is a moral issue and the other is a value issue? Why do you say that one a moral issue and the other a value issue? Reasons why we ought to be honest seem like good reasons why we ought to be charitable too.

No harm whatsoever in arguing for it, but when you infer that someone is “immoral” if they don’t then I have to draw the line.

When we are discussing what is ethical and what's not, by implication, we will be discussing who is ethical and who is not. Do not take this personally.

[Spidey]

Ok, Ethics & Morality have to do with harm.

Killing, Stealing and lying cause harm.

Values are optional beliefs that can benefit, but are not necessary.

Now I know where you will go from here…evil can be the absence of actions…blah blah.

There is a lot of bad stuff going on, and since you are not doing something about it you must be immoral.

You see, I don’t buy all that crap.

[Jeff250]

Ok, Ethics & Morality have to do with harm.

Killing, Stealing and lying cause harm.

Values are optional beliefs that can benefit, but are not necessary.

And there's nothing necessarily inconsistent with this. But...

Now I know where you will go from here…evil can be the absence of actions…blah blah.

Well, right, this is my intuition. I suspect we are biased in this respect. Everyone evil is everyone more evil than me, and everyone good is everyone just as or more good than me. I don't kill or steal, so these things are, of course, evil. Now, I'm good (of course), so people who do things like give to charity, which I don't regularly do, must then be some sort of special good, like super-good. I'm skeptical of my intuitions here on account of myself being biased.

[roid]

You really seem to like lecturing people like they’re stupid.

i'm not sure i was even talking to you

[Spidey]

There is also a question I have to ask:

Where does the moral authority making charity a duty come from?

Just curious

[Foil]

In my case, it comes from the Christian scriptures.

But more generally, the ethic which says it's a moral duty to help someone in need (when we have the resources) is a fairly common \"human value\" among people of nearly every viewpoint, religious or not.

BTW, I'm curious Spidey; do you believe there are moral absolutes, or that morality is relative/situational? If it's the latter, I think that would help me understand your perspective.

[TIGERassault]

Charity is an ethic. Refusing to do so won't make people call you immoral, but that doesn't mean it's not moral itself.

[Jeff250]

There is also a question I have to ask:

Where does the moral authority making charity a duty come from?

Just curious

I'll be able to answer this when I can confidently say where the authority for anything in ethics comes from. We have had some threads on this in the past. Nothing conclusive has ever been reached. All theories have some serious issues.

What I am attempting to appeal to more here is, perhaps, a common "ethos." Note that if you truly do believe something like that failing to do good ("a sin of omission") is not evil, I'm not prepared to counter this, but I am hoping that you will come to conclusions similar to the ones that I have by analyzing intuitions and such.

[Spidey]

I do believe there are moral absolutes, as a matter of fact I take great exception to moral relativism. (we simple disagree on what a moral might be)

Example:

A man steals bread because he is starving, some people might say that’s ok because he was starving.

I would say it was wrong, but was something he had to do.

The thing is you have to draw the line somewhere as to where morality begins and ends, my personal line is the “harm” line. Once you take things like charity to a morality level, there’s bound to be problems.

Example:

If I feed one child but ten starve I haven’t done enough, and unless I spend every single dime of my expendable* income on helping people eat, I’m immoral…and I just don’t accept that. Do you see how that is an open ended syndrome always leaving you immoral? (and I can give a zillion examples, please don’t make me) This also ties into my opposition of the “do nothing is evil” aspect of my beliefs.

The conclusions I came to a long time ago is people should help others in need, but it should also be a personal choice. (and not whether you are choosing to be moral or not)

As far as God having moral authority, I can’t grant that authority to a god that tells the Jews to kill a bunch of people and take their land, as well as plenty more outrageous things. (but I don’t wish to go into them here)

I have my own religion, and therefore my own concept of god/creator, maybe someday there will be a thread worthy of discussing this.

* And who decides that?

BTW Foil…you used the term “Human Value” I agree, It’s a “Value”.

[Krom]

This topic should be split.

Saying people should give all their excess income away is so beyond foolish that I don't think there is a sufficient string of adjectives in any language to describe it. First ensure your own future before worrying about others. Otherwise you may very well end up being the one depending on charity to survive, and that does much more harm to the system.

[Foil]

This topic should be split.

Agreed.

[Note: This side-topic of philanthropy probably deserves its own thread. Mods?]

[Jeff250]

Saying people should give all their excess income away is so beyond foolish that I don't think there is a sufficient string of adjectives in any language to describe it. First ensure your own future before worrying about others. Otherwise you may very well end up being the one depending on charity to survive, and that does much more harm to the system.

This is what Singer says in the essay I linked to. He appeals to the economic concept of marginal utility and applies it to his utilitarian ethics. The idea is that money has diminishing ethical returns. For example, if you have no money, receiving $10 could save your life. Saving lives is a big deal in ethics. Now, if you have a million dollars, receiving another $10 is inconsequential. This doesn't really do any ethical good. So Singer's argument is that we should give money to others up until the point that the money is no longer doing more good for others than it is for us.

Granted, you really have to buy into his utilitarian ethics to take it to the extreme that he does, but even if you don't, I think that it is still largely persuasive, even if not up until his extremes.

[Spidey]

This topic should be split.

Agreed.

[Note: This side-topic of philanthropy probably deserves its own thread. Mods?]

I would have to agree…if anybody even wanted to continue the original premise.

This thread went off topic something like 6 posts into it, no one has even tried to put it back on topic, so what’s the fuss?

[Jeff250]

If I feed one child but ten starve I haven’t done enough, and unless I spend every single dime of my expendable* income on helping people eat, I’m immoral…and I just don’t accept that. Do you see how that is an open ended syndrome always leaving you immoral?

Actually, I don't see this open-ended-syndrome problem. One way you could enact Singer's above idea is to just live frugally and then put in your will to give all of your savings to charity after you die. This way, you wouldn't have to worry about actively giving anything while you are still alive. But perhaps I don't understand what you mean.

And also, again assuming that Singer is right, not giving to charity wouldn't necessarily mean that you are immoral. In the Christian conception of morality, if you've ever done one wrong thing in your entire life, you're always immoral. But most people reject this thinking. We like to think that judging a person's character is more like a balance, where everything you are and have done must be weighed in to decide such a thing.

[Spidey]

Jeff, I need to ask you something because I’m a little confused.

Are you a religious person? Please clarify, because you said that you weren’t in another thread.

Also to further explain that point…simply this…you can never do enuf to not be considered immoral, no matter what you do, there will always be something that you did nothing about.

[Jeff250]

Are you a religious person? Please clarify, because you said that you weren’t in another thread.

No. I just wanted to bring in the Christian point of view for contrast. A Christian might accuse you of being immoral for doing even one bad thing in your lifetime. But I think that this is fooey. In reality, only in very extreme cases could doing one bad thing (or failing to do something good) necessarily make you an immoral person. Like if you had the opportunity but refused to press a button to disarm a bomb that would kill a million people...

Also to further explain that point…simply this…you can never do enuf to not be considered immoral, no matter what you do, there will always be something that you did nothing about.

According to Singer, you are done once helping others does less good than helping yourself. We might want to draw the line a bit sooner, but still, there is a line.

It seems like you're more concerned with being perfect than with not being immoral. But under what conception of morality is anyone perfect? There's nothing incompatible with a good person doing some bad things (or failing to do some good things). As long as they don't do too many bad things.

[flip]

I'm going to stay out of most of this. The bible does say that \"To him that knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin\".
Also saying this that if someone considers something not to be sin and their conscience is not defiled, then to him it is not sin. It then is an issue between God and that individual.

I take exception to this:

As far as God having moral authority, I can’t grant that authority to a god that tells the Jews to kill a bunch of people and take their land, as well as plenty more outrageous things. (but I don’t wish to go into them here)

By stating this:

\"The earth is the Lord's, and all that is in it\" (Psalm 24:1)

Since he is the owner, he therefore has that right.

Just as you have the right to give or not give of your money. You own it. Whatever you decide to do with it is your right and just.

[Spidey]

Actually Jeff, just the opposite, it’s you that has set the bar way too high.

Edit:

Ok Jeff, lets make sure we understand each other…

The point you are referencing is what I think “you” want by setting the bar so high concerning charity, not the way “I” think it should be.

P.S. this medium really sucks for discussion, so please forgive me for any misunderstandings.

Flip, you do realize that your statements are a contridiction….

[roid]

...no one has even tried to put it back on topic...

*achem*

mid page 2:

I forget what you guys are currently babbling on about. So here's some babbling that's ontopic for the thread:

climate campaigners are unwise to promote biofuels in a way that risks food supplies

that quote from the thread's OP is the gist of the matter.
From what i'm gathered over time, it's dumb to make Ethanol from traditional crops such as Corn. We should be concentrating on things like Celulosic Ethanol and ALGAE. Both are huge output technologies that are unattached to food crops.

Mr. Hartwig said oil companies and food manufacturers are behind the attempt to undercut ethanol. “There is a concerted misinformation campaign being put out there by those people who are threatened by ethanol’s growing prominence in the marketplace,”

that's interesting, i'd not heard that before. I guess it would make sense that there are some interests (ie: oil industry) involved in accelerating the poo-pooing of food crop ethanol - and perhaps trying to damage the entire ethanol industry in the process.
If they're right... and they do seem to be right, then we should take note. But do try to keep wary of their inevitable attempts to bring down all non-petrolium industries (ie: all their competition) in the process.

“We don’t see any evidence of the lack of availability of rice. There are no supply issues,”

Not so: Herald Tribune: As Australia dries, a global shortage of rice.
It's kinda dumb that Australia grew rice in the first place though, both Rice and Cotton are entirely unsuitable crops considering how scarce water is here. Yet we grow them both. I hope both those industries die in Australia, for the good of the land.
Austrlaian Rice production is now something like 2% of what it used to be. Coz climate change is causing droughts, we have a real water crisis.

[flip]

Flip, you do realize that your statements are a contridiction….

How so? There are some things that are obviously sin.(Murder, lieing, theft). There are some gray areas. Such as, is not giving your money to charity a sin. I didnt have time to write a whole discourse, I could, explaining it in detail. I'll try to lay it out simple.

If you feel compelled to do something good, and quench it, knowing you should have done it and feel bad later that is sin to you.

[Spidey]

Roid gets a cookie for trying.

No, flip what I meant was, if the lord owns the earth and everything in it, then he owns my money too.

[roid]

OMNOMNOMNOM!

[flip]

Heh ok gotcha. I was basically agreeing with you that not giving could not be immoral' unethical or sin. As far as the Lord's ownership, we have fundamental differences I guess, and thats ok. Not all my friends are believers and we get along just great. In my belief , yes the Lord owns everything, yet has made us to be stewards of it.
I don't see how not giving can be construed as immoral or wrong in any sense of the word ,unless that person feels they should. Then to not give would hurt thats persons concsience and therefore damage their faith.
I also have ought against giving to large, established charities and to some churches. You don't really know whats being done with the money and I myself had rather give locally, knowing exactly what MY money is used for.

For the scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker deserves his pay.”

If it seems to you I'm a bible thumper then I guess thats's true. Although, not once have I rebuked anyone or became critical. Since early childhood I have been aware of the presence of GOD. I have determined to align my thoughts with him. Most my friends who know me realize this. When I speak of GOD it's not to judge or preach, or to make others feel condemned, Thats the Holy Spirits job. It's just that after reading the bible for so many years and my own personal experiences, I am convinced. His wisdom has always been greater than mine, so everytime I've been confused about a matter, I've found sound wisdom in the Word.

[Duper]

OMNOMNOMNOM!

"C" is for cookie. ...that's good enough for Me!