If one man donates……

Giving to a good cause in order to feel good is worthy of praise but should not require praise.

I'm pretty sure this is in the bible? You need Jesus!

It's easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. *passes the collection plate*

If praise isn't required, then why are we giving it?

If we're giving it to make someone feel good - then does it matter if it's actually required?

Is it possible to give without requiring praise - and yet want or feel good about being praised?

Let me rephrase.
Goods, service, money or praise, as far as giving goes, one gives to get something out of it (more goods, services, money, love, a better bond, or the feeling good about oneself).

Whether that is good or bad… it is just the way we operate.

Originally Posted by Eye
Let me rephrase.
Goods, service, money or praise, as far as giving goes, one gives to get something out of it (more goods, services, money, love, a better bond, or the feeling good about oneself).

Whether that is good or bad… it is just the way we operate.

I'm not sure.

Personally, I don't give things to feel good about myself. I do it because I think giving what you don't need is rational.

I mean, how does anyone benefit from NOT helping if you don't actually need what you're giving away? That never made sense to me.

Of course, if someone is particularly grateful or I actually get to see some kind of positive result from giving, THEN my empathic response will trigger and I will feel good, but it's not why I give things away.

Also, I have an easy time giving things away - because I don't give a shit about things I don't actually need, and I need very, very little in terms of material goods.

So, I really have no reason to feel good about it. I might as well feel good about a visit to the toilet to relieve myself.

Ok, I DO feel good about that - but that's kinda different

As for praise - I have no use for that, personally. I don't think of myself as worthy of praise in any scenario.

Even if I did, I'm quite capable of praising myself if required.

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
If praise isn't required, then why are we giving it?

To feel good about ourselves.
Most people stop giving when they reap the opposite of smiles, happiness or grattitude - unless they find satisfaction in seeing the other person getting mad.

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
If we're giving it to make someone feel good - then does it matter if it's actually required?

No.

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
Is it possible to give without requiring praise - and yet want or feel good about being praised?

‘Without requiring praise’ - yes, I think so.
Though I know when you definetely do not want praise, you feel less good when getting praise. (‘Praise’ shifts the focus, the attention, from the receiver to the giver).

Originally Posted by Eye
To feel good about ourselves.
Most people stop giving when they reap the opposite of smiles, happiness or grattitude - unless they find satisfaction in seeing the other person getting mad.

The opposite, perhaps. But what about simply no response. I mean, plenty of people seem to donate without actually seeing the results?

Is it not possible to do that without feeling good about yourself?

No.

I would agree with that.

Without requiring praise’ - yes, I think so.
Though I know when you definetely do not want praise, you feel less good when getting praise. (‘Praise’ shifts the focus, the attention, from the receiver to the giver).

Well, as I said, I don't have much use for praise. I mean, it's easy to exploit that sort of thing - but I find exploiting other people incredibly boring - and I feel bad when doing so.

You might say I give things away to avoid feeling bad - but very rarely to feel good.

But "feeling bad" isn't quite the correct term.

It's sort of like seeing a spot of dust on the floor. It becomes a problem once you notice it and focus on it.

In that same way, it disturbs me if I realise I have something to give - that I don't need - that someone might need or want. Especially if it's an effortless process, as I'm ever so lazy.

That disturbance doesn't go away until I've given whatever it is away.

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
I'm not sure.

Personally, I don't give things to feel good about myself. I do it because I think giving what you don't need is rational.

I mean, how does anyone benefit from NOT helping if you don't actually need what you're giving away? That never made sense to me.

Of course, if someone is particularly grateful or I actually get to see some kind of positive result from giving, THEN my empathic response will trigger and I will feel good, but it's not why I give things away.

Also, I have an easy time giving things away - because I don't give a shit about things I don't actually need, and I need very, very little in terms of material goods.

So, I really have no reason to feel good about it. I might as well feel good about a visit to the toilet to relieve myself.

Ok, I DO feel good about that - but that's kinda different

Is it really giving, or disposing of?

Philosophical question:
Can someone that does not care about what s/he disposes of, care about its destination?

Originally Posted by Eye
Is it really giving, or disposing of?

Philosophical question:
Can someone that does not care about what s/he disposes of, care about its destination?

Can’t it be both?

Yes, I care insofar as I want the destination to make the optimal amount of sense, though it’s key that I don’t have to make much of an effort!

Please don't litter!

Luke 21:4, Jesus definitely puts the donation of the widow's mite as greater than anyone elses

Originally Posted by Luke 21:1-4 NKJV
And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”

This was also referenced in My Fair Lady when Elijah Doolittle tries to pay Henry Higgins with her meagre earnings. Mr Higgens makes a great show of saying what a fortune it was in a mocking jest that Elijah doesn't understand.

Originally Posted by George Bernard Shaw, The Pygmalion
HIGGINS. Come back to business. How much do you propose to pay me for the lessons?
LIZA. Oh, I know whats right. A lady friend of mine gets French lessons for eighteenpence an hour from a real French gentleman. Well, you wouldnt have the face to ask me the same for teaching me my own language as you would for French; so I wont give more than a shilling. Take it or leave it.
HIGGINS [walking up and down the room, rattling his keys and his cash in his pockets] You know, Pickering, if you consider a shilling, not as a simple shilling, but as a percentage of this girl's income, it works out as fully equivalent to sixty or seventy guineas from a millionaire.
PICKERING. How so? 50
HIGGINS. Figure it out. A millionaire has about £150 a day. She earns about half-a-crown.
LIZA [haughtily] Who told you I only—
HIGGINS. [continuing] She offers me two-fifths of her day's income for a lesson. Two-fifths of a millionaire's income for a day would be somewhere about £60. It's handsome. By George, it's enormous! it's the biggest offer I ever had.
LIZA [rising, terrified] Sixty pounds! What are you talking about? I never offered you sixty pounds. Where would I get—
HIGGINS. Hold your tongue. 55
LIZA [weeping] But I aint got sixty pounds. Oh—
MRS. PEARCE. Dont cry, you silly girl. Sit down. Nobody is going to touch your money.
HIGGINS. Somebody is going to touch you, with a broomstick, if you dont stop snivelling. Sit down.
LIZA [obeying slowly] Ah-ah-ah-ow-oo-o!

starting at 1:45

The anonymous bit can actually get a bit tricky, too, thanks to human psychology. You're more likely to give to a cause that your friends have given to than to one that just has X donations from some people. For widely respected people, making a public donation can result in some serious "me too" donations for the charity. So, if such a person puts their name on the donation, they are doing it 'for their own glory' but, if they don't, they are putting their own humility above the needs of the charity! GHA!!

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
If praise isn't required, then why are we giving it?

Because the group/person getting it needs it?

Because the group/person getting it needs it?

To your mind, what's the difference between required and needed?

I'm just glad both these men are donating to good causes.

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
We have two men.

One is a billionaire.
Another has maybe one thousand dollars to his name.

The billionaire donates one million dollars to a "good" cause.
The other guy donates 500 dollars to a "good" cause.

Which donation is more worthy of praise? Does it mean anything in terms of the value of the men in question?

I think it depends what you are praising…

If you are praising "generosity" then, certainly the second guy.
If you are praising "effect" of giving then the first guy.
If you are praising the "act of giving" then both guys equally.

This is bit of tangent but in most societies we praise people who give to charity and rightly so. However I feel that you can do LOT of good in the world without giving anything and these people don't get enough praise. For example I think Apple (yes that Apple!) has done lot of good in this world! I use many apple products and they have all improved my life. Yes I gave £1000 for the new iphone but for me, the iphone is worth more than £1000 I paid for it (else I am stupid!). Millions of people use the iphone and I hope their lives are also made better by the iphone. So instead of praising Apple for making our life better, we have go at them for the bucket loads of money they are making! The point I am trying to get here is that people are envious of others and in that envy they fail to see the good others are doing.

PS: Apple does lot of evil things as well but my point was they do good as well. You can argue on blance they are evil but thats another debate.

PSS: You can replace Apple with other firms or even people and similar point will hold.

I think you're giving credit to the wrong entity. At least give it to the people who came up with the technology, not the company that has to run with one motivation only: money.

Originally Posted by Cacheperl
I think you're giving credit to the wrong entity. At least give it to the people who came up with the technology, not the company that has to run with one motivation only: money.

I said Apple as catch all term because there are lots of people behind their products.

But here is the thing, Apple or the people who work for apple has only one motivation which is to make loads of money for themselves but the only way they can make that money is to make other peoples life better. I don't think this is such a bad thing yet we hate them for wanting to make money for themselves …