Invisible Children is a non-profit organization that was formed to help stop the 25 year long war in Northern Uganda. Here is a link about the organization.
Also, here is a place where you can make a donation to the organization.
Understand that when I am asking these questions, I don't want you to take offense at them.
Surely we can talk about doing "good" and "evil" but these are all relative to other good and evil unless we are talking about the "greatest good" and "greatest evil" assuming that we are referring to it in the utilitarian sense.
And if I have money, I can use my money in various ways. I can burn it, use it to buy other goods, etc. So tell me, do you believe that this organization is the "greatest good" towards which I can spend my money and why?
And if I have money, I can use my money in various ways. I can burn it, use it to buy other goods, etc. So tell me, do you believe that this organization is the "greatest good" towards which I can spend my money and why?
Does it have to be the greatest good? If you only spend your money on absolutes you probably wouldn't spend your money at all. The point of a "good" cause should be to increase the present situation of individuals, if a specific one sounds good to you then it should be the one you donate to. It's fairly simple, no reason to over complicate it.
Well, I guess you could spend your money on things for personal gain, but making a donation will help save lives. The plan is to make radio towers to help let people know when the LRA are coming so people can prepare. Then there are rescue teams looking for kids who escape the LRA army. Finally, there will be reabilitation (I think I spelled that wrong) centers that help the kids deal with the stress of being under LRA control, and once they're done, they can go home to their family. But its entirely up to you where you invest your money.
The point of a "good" cause should be to increase the present situation of individuals, if a specific one sounds good to you then it should be the one you donate to. It's fairly simple, no reason to over complicate it.
But if I could spend $1000 dollars to save 1 life, or $1000 to save 3 lives, which should I choose? The 3 lives, right? Thus it is the same with charity. The extent of something's good depends on just that - how good it is.
But then, what makes that $1000 to save 1 life good at all if there is a better alternative. Given those two choices, couldn't you say it is evil, since you are depriving 3 children to favor just 1?
Well, I guess you could spend your money on things for personal gain, but making a donation will help save lives.
But notice that there are thousands of charities where I can spend my money, but some, surely, put money to better use than others. It is not being selfish vs. being unselfish. It is choosing which is the best way one spends money, no?
So then, what differentiates you from the rest that makes your cause better?
But if I could spend $1000 dollars to save 1 life, or $1000 to save 3 lives, which should I choose? The 3 lives, right? Thus it is the same with charity. The extent of something's good depends on just that - how good it is.
Well lets say this one life was in a worse condition than the 3 other lives. Then what would you do?
Given those two choices, couldn't you say it is evil, since you are depriving 3 children to favor just 1?
Nah, it would simply be "less" good than the other decision.
But if I could spend $1000 dollars to save 1 life, or $1000 to save 3 lives, which should I choose? The 3 lives, right? Thus it is the same with charity. The extent of something's good depends on just that - how good it is.
Yep, but it's very difficult to predict real world results with limited information; if you are given two charities that are fairly equal in merit, and most are to an extent, than the decision may be impossible to make. If you are given one that serves the purpose of Invisible children and one that throws potato chips out of a helicopter the decision is more clear cut.
But if I could spend $1000 dollars to save 1 life, or $1000 to save 3 lives, which should I choose? The 3 lives, right? Thus it is the same with charity. The extent of something's good depends on just that - how good it is.
You could just be like me and spend $0 to save no lives.
But notice that there are thousands of charities where I can spend my money, but some, surely, put money to better use than others. It is not being selfish vs. being unselfish. It is choosing which is the best way one spends money, no?
Yes I understand that some organizations can use money wisely or not as wisely as some others.
Nah, it would simply be "less" good than the other decision.
So if this was a scientific experiment and you were "testing" the utility of a charity, the control would be doing nothing?
one that throws potato chips out of a helicopter the decision is more clear cut.
This made me laugh...
Well lets say this one life was in a worse condition than the 3 other lives. Then what would you do?
Hmm...well, let's assume that without intervention, on average 3 children would die, and on average 1 child would die in the other cause. And to keep it simple, let's assume you don't know any specific information on the children that will die.
Well, what creates utility? Is it the complete "end" result (factoring in everything that occurred)?
