This is a concept of Ignatian Spirituality called the first principal and foundation - I am not evangelizing here, so feel free to discount the God parts if one wishes. But I think in these paragraphs are the keys to man's happiness - been working at this for a bunch of years, not even close yet. But always thought there were a lot of answers here.

God who loves us creates us and wants to share life with us forever. Our love response takes shape in our praise and honor and service of the God of our life.

All the things in this world are also created because of God’s love and they become a context of gifts, presented to us so that we can know God more easily and make a return of love more readily.

As a result, we show reverence for all the gifts of creation and collaborate with God in using them so that by being good stewards we develop as loving persons in our care of God’s world and its development. But if we abuse any of these gifts of creation or, on the contrary, take them as the center of our lives, we break our relationship with God and hinder our growth as loving persons.

In everyday life, then, we must hold ourselves in balance before all created gifts insofar as we have a choice and are not bound by some responsibility. We should not fix our desires on health or sickness, wealth or poverty, success or failure, a long life or a short one. For everything has the potential of calling forth in us a more loving response to our life forever with God.

Our only desire and our one choice should be this: I want and I choose what better leads to God’s deepening life in me.

America stands as perhaps the only nation that devotes astronomical sums of money to charity and foreign affairs? — Wallows

Do you? Or is it just because there are over 300 million of you?

Foreign aid given Per Capita
1. Norway $812.58
2. Sweden $701.10
3. Luxembourg $609.48
4. Denmark $447.05
5. Switzerland $421.37
6. Netherlands $338.38
7. United Kingdom $284.85
8. Finland $234.13
.
.
.
17. United States $ 95.52

And of course the question ought to be just how astronomical your charity is without universal health care, absence of free education or other "socialist" things that other, poorer countries pay with taxes? And you might argue that they indeed are poorer as they do take care of their poor people more than the US does. Yet if the government does the tasks that voluntary charities do your country, can these things be measured? Perhaps it goes against the American ethos of the self made man and the focus on the individual and not the collective.

People (myself included), often become depressed when confronted with the misery of the world. Their powerlessness becomes a source of supreme frustration. The caring aspect of oneself turns on itself due to internalizing these issues and one becomes stuck in their own poop. Therefore what's the solution? To start caring even more? How? — Wallows

Well, is caring through charity the real response?

You really should ask and look how absolute povetry was eradicated in various countries, how countries that have been poor have gotten more affluent and solved their problems. And we've seen the biggest reduction in absolute povetry in the World during this era, so there's a lot of information about it. Even if charity is a good thing, seldom has some voluntary charity been the answer in eradicating povetry historically.

With the Betrand Russell quote, well, just what concrete solutions does it give? Because that is what we need, concrete answers to real problems. Usually people aren't happy with the answers at all.

You really should ask and look how absolute povetry was eradicated in various countries, how countries that have been poor have gotten more affluent. And we've seen the biggest reduction in absolute povetry in the World during this era. Even if charity is a good thing, seldom has some voluntary charity been the answer in eradicating povetry historically. — ssu

Then what has been the deciding factor in reducing absolute poverty? Economics? Thanks for providing those statistics. I guess, my point was that charity is a strong factor, maybe not the deciding factor.

With the Betrand Russell quote, well, just what concrete solutions does it give? Because that is what we need, concrete answers to real problems. Usually people aren't happy with the answers at all. — ssu

I don't know the grand solution to all our problems. I doubt ol' Bertie knew either. But, public engagement with problems would be the only thing that comes to my mind.

I've had to learn to cope with my own life probs never mind beating myself up over countless poor sods worse off than me.

Then what has been the deciding factor in reducing absolute poverty? Economics? — Wallows

Not only capitalism and a free economy. Also you need strong institutions, political stability, a rule of law and a justice state, which are necessary for a well functioning economy. Otherwise capitalism will bring you corruption and at worst, a cleptrocracy where those in power will steal the wealth of your country and leave the population poor. The possibility of social upward mobility is also important: that even if you come from a poor background, you can rise to a more affluent class. Wealth distribution is important, which comes from things like that ordinary people can find decent jobs and can get affordable loans to buy a home for themselves, which the next generation can inherit. Hence wealth distribution doesn't only mean that you take from the rich and give to the poor through taxation, but that the labour force gets it share through better wages and has the ability to get loans just like the rich can. Hence povetry isn't eradicated by the wealthy giving alms to the poor, it's eradicated by the poor having the ability to improve their lives themselves.

Basically the largest change has been the "takeoff" in China and now also in India. Both countries basically scrapped the socialist planned economy models, even if China does plan a lot. One might argue that they changed an even more lousy economic system just to the lousy one we have.

In word and intuition 'modern societies' may feel compassion, but in their actions they consume more and more, to the detriment of exactly those they supposedly feel compassion towards, and to the detriment of their own spiritual well-being. The greatest act of charity any such society could perform for the world is declare: "We have enough. We are satisfied. I can live with one car instead of two. I do not need luxury toothpaste. Eating meat twice a week, instead of seven, is enough for me."

Until such a point is reached, nothing good can come of it. And declaring compassion while willfully or in ignorance indulging in this insatiable lust for more is naive and hypocritical.

"We have enough. We are satisfied. I can live with one car instead of two. I do not need luxury toothpaste. Eating meat twice a week, instead of seven, is enough for me." — Tzeentch

:ok:

Therefore what's the solution? To start caring even more? — Wallows

BC: Right: Care more!

How? — Wallows

BC: By actually doing caring. Feeling like you care is nice; what matters is that you actually perform care. So glad you care about starving people. Now go do something about it.

WS: Yeah, but I don't have enough resources to solve all of anybody's problems.
BC: Nobody asked you to solve all of anybody's problem. Find a problem that is shared by people and make a contribution (time, talent, or money) to that group of people.

For instance: Donate $ or food to a food shelf. Donate toothbrushes and toothpaste to shelters and food shelves. Toilet paper, shampoo, sanitary products for women, condoms, paper towel, etc. are all things that people who rely on shelters and food shelves may need. Buy some, whatever you can afford, and give it to them. If you live in the northland, men's and women's cotton sox and cotton T-shirts, men's underwear, and women's underwear (most sizes are needed, not in equal numbers...)

Places like St. Vincent de Paul take used clothing. Some places take all manner of household supplies (clean and in working order; they aren't junk haulers)

Volunteer some time at a shelter; people with problems are real people and interesting to talk to; quite often have good reasons for being in the situation they are in (bad things happen). "Be ye doers of the word and not only hearers of the word."

There are a whole host of ways to help other people.

The greatest act of charity any such society could perform for the world is declare: "We have enough. We are satisfied. I can live with one car instead of two. I do not need luxury toothpaste. Eating meat twice a week, instead of seven, is enough for me." — Tzeentch

Some might argue if this is really charity. As there are far more people than cars (1 billion of them), the two car limit doesn't sound as a sacrifice. (Especially if you're single)

There are a whole host of ways to help other people. — Bitter Crank

Of course one can give donations to charities and even volunteer. Yet wouldn't be giving a job to an unemployed person be even more of a help?

Of course one can give donations to charities and even volunteer. Yet wouldn't be giving a job to an unemployed person be even more of a help? — ssu

It would indeed be better to employ someone without a job than to give them charity, but most people (who are working class) do not have it within their power to employ other people. So the best thing for those people to do is to act collectively in political activity to provide jobs.

But charity (caritas) is important to the individual giver and receiver, but especially the giver. Why? The act of caring for others establishes a connection between the carer and cared-for which validates their common humanity. The validation of common humanity is important because people tend to distance themselves from those in need. If the needy are distant enough, one can more conveniently forget about them.

Political activity can qualify as caritas et amo but the rigamarole of politics is likely to bury caritas et amo under layers of tedious procedure.

There are a whole host of ways to help other people. — Bitter Crank

But, depression! Blah, blah, blah, I can't because, blah blah blah, depression.

Foreign aid given Per Capita
1. Norway $812.58
2. Sweden $701.10
3. Luxembourg $609.48
4. Denmark $447.05
5. Switzerland $421.37
6. Netherlands $338.38
7. United Kingdom $284.85
8. Finland $234.13 — ssu

Polls have for decades shown that Americans' estimate of US Government foreign aid to be far, far higher than it actually is. Many people think it is in the range of 5% to 10% of the federal budget. Of course it is nowhere close to that much. The Agency for International Development (part of the State Department) was budgeted for $50 billion 2016. $50 billion is peanuts in an almost $4 trillion dollar federal budget.

Besides $50 billion not being a big amount, no international effort operates without overhead, so significantly less than $50 billion ends up in goods and services overseas.

An international health NGO I worked for in the 1990s operated 3 small USAID projects, each budgeted at around $100,000 per year in a three year grant (Uganda, Kenya, and Nicaragua). These were child survival and maternal health programs. We were required to raise matching funds for about a third of each projects cost for a total of $100,000 in private donations over a three year period. The programs were good grass root capacity building projects. We delivered in the field, but we couldn't deliver in the domestic fundraising area. As a consequence, we were de-funded and went out of business.

Depression is real, I get that. I've been depressed for years at a stretch (diagnosed; medication; therapy; the whole bit) and I understand HOW it is debilitating. My late spouse was bi-polar and was severely disabled at times. Still, he managed to volunteer for causes he valued. His efforts were modest, but he found it satisfying and the places he volunteered found it useful.

When I suggest you volunteer, I'm not picturing you as SUPER VOLUNTEER who regularly performs miracles. I'm thinking of a small project, maybe involving 1 or 2 hours a week, doing something relatively easy and low stress. For instance, I used to volunteer an hour or two a week (or less) at a food coop. One of the jobs was cutting up large hunks of cheese into small hunks and wrapping them in plastic. This was low pressure, low skill work; there were other volunteers to chat with.

Are there any adult mental health day activity centers in your area? You might qualify as a client or volunteer, either one. At least the one's I've seen operate as drop in centers, sort of; they are places to spend some time at; socialization opportunities. Low stress, no great expectations. It would get you out of the house for a short while.

I'm not suggesting you start with anything more than quite small efforts. I picture you as being in your house most of the time. A worthwhile goal would be to go outside for a short walk every day. Do you do things of that sort? Do you have a yard in which you could mess around with? Plant some seeds, watch them grow.

I'm not suggesting you start with anything more than quite small efforts. I picture you as being in your house most of the time. A worthwhile goal would be to go outside for a short walk every day. Do you do things of that sort? Do you have a yard in which you could mess around with? Plant some seeds, watch them grow. — Bitter Crank

I'm actually actively planning on growing pot in my mom's garage to pay off the mortgage bills and support my mom further. It is legal and not criminal, as it used to be since legalization took place.

I think it might be a great hobby that brings home the bacon. Other than that my days are filled with wallowing (something I am supremely good at), and posting on this forum.

Foreign aid given Per Capita
1. Norway $812.58
2. Sweden $701.10
3. Luxembourg $609.48
4. Denmark $447.05
5. Switzerland $421.37
6. Netherlands $338.38
7. United Kingdom $284.85
8. Finland $234.13 — ssu

But see:
https://fee.org/articles/americans-are-more-charitable-than-socially-conscious-europeans/

And of course the question ought to be just how astronomical your charity is without universal health care, absence of free education or other "socialist" things that other, poorer countries pay with taxes? — ssu

Education in America is free from kindergarten to 12th grade. Pre-kindergarten and college is also free in my state. https://www.gafutures.org/media/187610/faqs-hope-zm-scholarship-012918.pdf.

Your comment about the generosity of Americans being explainable due to their lack of spending on healthcare doesn't follow. Americans are the most personally generous nation and they spend the most per capita on healthcare. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends

Your comment about the generosity of Americans being explainable due to their lack of spending on healthcare doesn't follow. Americans are the most personally generous nation and they spend the most per capita on healthcare. — Hanover

Are you sarcastic, Hanover?

(What I was trying to say is that when things that charities try to help are taken care by the government and tax income, that ought to be remembered when comparing countries.)

Yes, indeed you do spend a huge amount more on health care than any other country per capita in the World. Even Norway with it's oil revenue and lavish welfare state doesn't come close. Only thing that you left out is that your health care system is one of the lousiest ones on average. The U.S. spends about twice what other high-income nations do on health care but has the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant mortality rates (with similar countries that is, typically Western OECD countries). And there's a ton of other examples, here's just a few.

- The U.S. has the highest rate of deaths amenable to health care among comparable countries (Western countries)
- Hospital admissions for preventable diseases are more frequent in the U.S. than in comparable countries
- The mortality rate for respiratory diseases is higher in the U.S. than in comparably wealthy countries
- The U.S. has higher rates of medical, medication, and lab errors than comparable countries
- Use of the emergency department in place of regular doctor visits is more common in the U.S. than in most comparable countries (which means far higher health care costs)

Yet indeed you can argue that the US has top-of-the-line medical care also and that is true: for rich people or those who's workplace offer great coverage.

You see, basically that generosity is that you give insurance companies and the health care industry huge profits. Perhaps also you make some doctors millionaires too. And this is totally logical: the health care system is largely there to make a profit, and indeed it does that well. Great generosity from you! Yet how this extremely expensive system simply just continues to thrive with people being OK with it is amazing. Seems like marketing and lobbying works.

Education in America is free from kindergarten to 12th grade. Pre-kindergarten and college is also free in my state. — Hanover

Are your universities also free? In fact only the UK is comparable in tuitions to the US.

Are your universities also free? In fact only the UK is comparable in tuitions to the US. — ssu

If this answers your question, then credit has made this issue redundant. Although, as far as I'm aware, credit cannot be discharged even through bankrupture in regards to student debt. So, moot point on my part.

I don´t think helping people is ever a good idea. Helping is to make the giver feel good, and the donor and society think that is that feeling and the attitude that count. Bullshit! it´s outcome that matter. When you help you try to impose your idea of how the world should be on others. To do it when people are in need and weakened is very useful for your selfish purpose, but it is not fair to others. What religious groups do in disasters and wars and hospitals is unethical. It´s what ISIS does to recruit people, to help those in need and taking advantage of the situation to forward an agenda.

Better than helping is colaborating. Colaboration is based on a more symmetrical relationship, and there is no favour involved or poisoned gift; only equals working for common goals, and services that can be returned. Personally, I only help people who can return the favour, and only give gifts with permission and recognizing explicitly that it´s mostly me who´s being helped when someone accepts my present. I only colaborate with people that I care about, people who are in direct contact with me and are part of my circle. I would never help citizens from other nations or people I´ve never been with. Not even Jesus did that; love thy neighbour, the people around you; this was a good advice, because people around you can return the help, and it´s easier to know if you are helping or doing harm.
Of course, digital technologies mean that "your neighbour" might sometimes be thousands of kilometres away; but that´s okay if the relationship with them is personal, real and reciprocal.

You may think I´m Mr Scrooge, but actually I´ve been a volunteer in the past with Cáritas, Manos Unidas, green groups, and helped people I did not even know. I´ve also been on the receiving end of charity when I was in dire straits. But precisely those experiences taught me that there was a much more ethical and healthy way to act in the world.

You may think I´m Mr Scrooge, but actually I´ve been a volunteer in the past with Cáritas, Manos Unidas, green groups, and helped people I did not even know. I´ve also been on the receiving end of charity when I was in dire straits. But precisely those experiences taught me that there was a much more ethical and healthy way to act in the world. — DiegoT

Bravo. Kudos for your contributions and being a realist. :praise:

I think charity is limited to addressing symptoms of a problem and not the problem itself. Would you agree with this @DiegoT

Are you sarcastic, Hanover? — ssu

Not at all. You're consistent only in your negativity toward America, but inconsistent in this debate. Your position was that an American charitable giving evaluation had to account for the selfish withholding of money from public healthcare. The problem with that argument is that American healthcare isn't cheap and doesn't provide Americans extra money to spend on charity. Your discussion of the inefficiencies of American healthcare was entirely off point of the OP, but directly on point to your anti-American theme.

Are your universities also free? In fact only the UK is comparable in tuitions to the US. — ssu

I pay $4,000 total tuition per year for 2 kids both at major research universities (that's $1,000 per semester for each child). That's easily paid for with a part time job. The world fills our universities, they are open to all levels of achievement, and are the envy of the world.

I've gone from depressed to angry honestly. Everyone is like YOLO they say it like they know what they are talking about (as they pop pills and drink everyday).

I think American culture is hypocritical, it says one thing does another. Everyone has their one liner of truth but if you really looked at the choices people make... (I speak mainly of my own generation and what I see.) I point to the fact we are apathetic like the Germans in WW2. Something is going on.

Bertrand Russell to me is saying open your eyes and think about where everything stands. There is a vast world out there that can easily be corrupted by the unexamined life. By only thinking about immediate affairs and shortsightedness. We are prisoner's of our own minds. We need to be free.

How do you teach children ethics? How do you teach people to care?

For the people talking about aid expenditures: I got a call to donate to veterans. I asked what % of a dollar goes to the vet. Answer 17% The rest goes to the org for it to function. Do you think they are counting the dollar or 17%? I rather go down to the VA and hand out a $20 bill than give the business $100 and help only with $17. Not only that they have an agenda most of the time.

Also, Americans blame disabled people for the economy while shelling out for corporate welfare. How is that principled logic... blame the poor bastard as the head honchos get a grab for it.

My hypothesis is government and business are in bed together. And the laws they are making while not all bad protects their clout at the expense of the consumer and tax payer (apathy). Moral relativism protect their philosophy and a rationale for acting that way. It's an excuse and the more people that believe it, the more perception becomes reality. Here we are everything stays the same.

Excuse the rant... just want to understand.

I think American culture is hypocritical — Drek

Of course it is. ALL societies, ALL cultural and religious institutions, ALL individuals everywhere are hypocritical. Hypocrisy is part of the human condition. That's why we advise each other to not believe everything they read and hear and not take others' statements at face value. People aren't hypocritical all the time, and you won't detect each instance that they are being authentic.

We are prisoner's of our own minds. We need to be free. — Drek

And once you escape your mind, where will you be? Yes, in a real sense we are all trapped in our skulls with nothing but a stream of second-hand information from the senses to inform us of what's "out there". Carry that far enough and you end up with encapsulated solipsism: "I am the only mind that exists".

How do you teach children ethics? How do you teach people to care? — Drek

You teach them the simple rules of ethical behavior when they are young, and then you model the desired behavior as they grow up into adulthood. Show your children what ethical behavior looks like, and correct them when they behave wrongly. Show them what caring behavior looks like.

Fundraising: There is no reason to donate money to rotten charities. Go here for ratings of charities.

https://www.charitywatch.org/join (may be a donation/fee)
https://www.charitynavigator.org
BBB Wise Giving Alliance (Better Business Bureau)``

You can call your state's Attorney General to find out if the charity you are interested in is currently being prosecuted. The IRS also reveals some information about charities.

Give to charities that use less than 25% of their income for all overhead activities -- including fundraising. (Charities that use more may not be crooks; they may be merely incompetent.)

Here is a list of police/veteran fundraising outfits that Consumers Union considers least reputable:

***American Federation of Police & Concerned Citizens
Titusville, Fla.
***Disabled Police and Sheriffs Foundation
Ste. Genevieve, Mo.
***Firefighters Charitable Foundation
Farmingdale, N.Y.
***National Association of Chiefs of Police
Titusville, Fla.
***United States Deputy Sheriff's Association
Wichita, Kan.
Veterans
***Disabled Veterans National Foundatio
 Lanham, Md.
***Help Heal Veterans
Winchester, Calif.
***Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation
Annandale, Va.
***Paralyzed Veterans of America
Washington, D.C.
***Veterans Support Foundation
Silver Spring, Md.
***California Police Youth Charities
Sacramento, Calif.
***Law Enforcement Education Program
Troy, Mich. — Consumers Union

My hypothesis is government and business are in bed together. — Drek

Yes, sir, they are not only in bed but they are fucking each other's brains out.

A more gracious quote on the matter from Karl Marx: Government is merely a committee for organizing the affairs of the Bourgeoisie.

IF they are doing that, what is our obligations then? Just take it up tha ass? I suppose been doing it since Marx was around... at least

How...do...we...live? So morals are dead? So fuck the founding father's then? What do we use as guidance then? Satan?

You have a republic... if you can keep it. So what are we really then a corpocracy?

Can't beat em' join em'?

How...do...we...live? So morals are dead? So fuck the founding father's then? What do we use as guidance then? Satan? — Drek

There are several good guidance systems kicking around. Most of them are from religious sources, but there are secular ones too. Nothing wrong with religious sources. The ethics taught don't really have to be paired with all of the religious beliefs. For instance, Jesus said "love one another." You don't have to believe in the resurrection to follow that ethical teaching. Love one another, take care of each other, be kind, be considerate, be responsible. It's not very complicated.

IF they are doing that, what is our obligations then? — Drek

Your obligation is to the nation or your community, not to the debased spectacle that politicians and big money can put on. I love my country; I don't love the the behavior of the elected representatives.

Just take it up tha ass? — Drek

No, Donald will do that for you.

So what are we really then a corpocracy? — Drek

Well... yes. To be precise, we are ruled by an oligarchy: a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution. Oligarchs are usually either very rich or they are well armed.

The problem with this graph lies in the fact that it concerns voluntary spending. In countries with a lot of social security this type of spending is often involuntary, through taxes. If we were to account for that spending, we'd end up with a very different graph. Abuse of statistics is rampant these days. Please caution yourself from falling into that same pitfall.

Your position was that an American charitable giving evaluation had to account for the selfish withholding of money from public healthcare. — Hanover

Wrong, you simply have to take into account all of the expenses. Just as Tzeentch above comments.

I pay $4,000 total tuition per year for 2 kids both at major research universities (that's $1,000 per semester for each child) — Hanover

And here there are no tuitions for universities. Hence, and hopefully you would get my point, to compare the the two systems you have to look at how much more taxes then I pay than you. So if you give to voluntary charities there, you do have to take into account similar aid is given otherwise through taxes.

And with health care the American system basically is twice more expensive, even if we have universal health care.

The world fills our universities, they are open to all levels of achievement, and are the envy of the world. — Hanover

Indeed. I've myself pointed out that basically in research and the volume of scientific papers just one single Ivy League university, MIT, is equivalent in scale to all universities and R&D sector here. Btw, in MIT nine months’ tuition and fees for 2017–2018 are $49,892. (Should be added that a third of the students attend tuition-free and half have scholarships. The other half however...)

not exactly. Let me explain: Charity addresses a very wide spectrum of social needs, from emergency situations in which you need fire-fighters and clean water, to national strategies to improve a whole society. I know from inside the part of the spectrum helping urgent needs to community projects. Community projects in Manos Unidas, were projects people from the world would apply for. For example, say a mission in Perú wants a new school. These projects were examined and selected according to a chart of criteria to be met; from ecological sustainability, to economic efficiency or hiring local people, and many others. Among the projects selected, our local group would choose one in particular, based on our group criteria that were just the Manos Unidas national criteria put into simpler words. The willingness of the director of the project to come to visit us in Spain to give us feed-back counted a lot too. We´d raise money for this project but the money itself did not go directly to the project, but to a fund where all projects got their funding; the local commitment in Spain was important never the less.

The criteria to select the projects is very important. If people in a country know that they have to meet certain criteria of sustainability, good management, maximum commitment of local communities and so on, you are shaping how things are done and supporting people who want to do things right but are facing enormous cultural and political difficulties. For instance, say that a new school wants to teach sexual education to girls, and the imam says no; if the money for the school (that is rarely just a school, it is usually many more things in a small village) is conditional on the implementation of a sexual health program, the headmaster can bring people on his side over the imam or priest.

When progressives state that this strategy is equal to unfairly "impose" civilization on supposedly pristine cultures, they simply do not know what they are talking about. They are siding with the elements in a community that want nothing to change, especially the status quo.
For example, the U.K. gives a lot of aid money to Tanzania for birth control programs; but the government, which is pro-natality and literally ask Tanzanian women to have as many babies as they can, have been giving the millions to Jihadist groups: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6172115/Britain-funds-45million-family-planning-programme-Tanzania.html

This is what happens when you give without real compromises, criteria, supervision, "imposing civilization" on the project you fund. You feel good, but the money is actually helping those who oppose the betterment of a society against those who are struggling for a change.

I quitted Manos Unidas when the Spanish Church wanted some of the money of the project to go to build churches; but I learnt a lot about how charity is done right and professionally even if I was only a volunteer. The bottom line for me is that ethical behaviour only happens when decisions include rational thought and knowledge.