-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Motives of Charitable Acts
- Thread starter rojse
- Start date
The motive represents the kind of person you are. If you give to charity through self interest then you are not a charitable person in reality. That doesn't mean your action will not do good.
When it comes to 'good' and 'bad' we must always consider two things:
The act
The motive
One represents the effect on the environment and one represents the quality of the person.
The motive only matters to others if the consequences of the action affect them. Otherwise, generally speaking, I would say that the motive is simply an insight into a personality.
When it comes to 'good' and 'bad' we must always consider two things:
The act
The motive
One represents the effect on the environment and one represents the quality of the person.
The motive only matters to others if the consequences of the action affect them. Otherwise, generally speaking, I would say that the motive is simply an insight into a personality.
Probably not to the recipient.
I've always felt that motives matter more than the consequence, though it's admittedly a rather hard stance to support. I despise dishonesty; I think that has something to do with it.
People tend to say, in regards to charitable acts, that only the end good result matters-- after all, people who needed aid, received aid, regardless of the why behind the action.
But, people also tend to forgive accidents, ie, "he didn't mean to trip you, so don't be mad at him." If only the end result matters, why the inconsistency?
Also, in our legal system we distinguish between premeditated murder and manslaughter. The end result is the same-- someone is dead. But, the thoughts behind the action apparently mean something to us, hence the difference.
Ah. Thought-provoking question. I don't believe there is a God judging our thoughts.
Perhaps humanity as a whole benefits from sincerity over dishonesty?
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
e: Great, the framing is even less interesting than I thought.
Should we be consequentialists? This is a toughie.
Should we be consequentialists? This is a toughie.
rojse
RF Addict
Was this directed at me? Or someone else?
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
The topic in general. The gist of this discussion is consequentialism vs <other>. A topic that isn't particularly interesting (for easily googleable reasons).
rojse
RF Addict
Why isn't it interesting, Yossarian22?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Motives are rarely one-dimensional. Charitable acts are generally both selflessly and selfishly motivated.
Additionally, I don't know how important motivations generally are, as often people are unaware of their actual motivations for performing an action.
Additionally, I don't know how important motivations generally are, as often people are unaware of their actual motivations for performing an action.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I wouldn't sweat it. His statement says more about himself than the subject of the thread.
MSizer
MSizer
According to Kant, the motive is the only thing that matters in any act. If you bring a hungry person food, but then she subsequently dies because the food had been poisoned unbeknownst to you, you're off the hook, because you intended to help, not harm. Hume on the other hand argued that it is indeed your fault that he died. While I think that there is maybe some merit to Hume's point of view, I think Kant's perspective makes much more sense most of the time. When it comes to the law, it seems like they split things down the middle. If your intention was good, but you caused harm, you get a lesser punishment, but you don't just get to go home either.
PureX
Veteran Member
Motives can become a tricky issue. I would say that in general, my own motives should matter to me. But as they remain mostly unknown to others (and sometimes even to me), I would expect others to take my actions at face value.
I know people who don't like to give money to beggars because they believe they will use the money to get drunk or high, rather than to eat or do something more positive for themselves. And I certainly understand their feelings. But to me, to give means to give, not to give with strings attached. So I do give money to beggars, usually, and I leave it to them to decide what they wish to do with it. I'm a recovered alcoholic, myself, and so can remember being in the other guy's shoes. There were times when I needed to drink more than I needed to eat. That's the nature of the illness. And I am not his judge.
But again, I understand and appreciate the feelings of those who do not want to support a drunk or dope addict's addiction. They are motivated differently then I am, but that's OK. We're all different people.
I know people who don't like to give money to beggars because they believe they will use the money to get drunk or high, rather than to eat or do something more positive for themselves. And I certainly understand their feelings. But to me, to give means to give, not to give with strings attached. So I do give money to beggars, usually, and I leave it to them to decide what they wish to do with it. I'm a recovered alcoholic, myself, and so can remember being in the other guy's shoes. There were times when I needed to drink more than I needed to eat. That's the nature of the illness. And I am not his judge.
But again, I understand and appreciate the feelings of those who do not want to support a drunk or dope addict's addiction. They are motivated differently then I am, but that's OK. We're all different people.
PureX
Veteran Member
All quite true. This is why I think it's best that I try to take other people's actions at face value, and not ascribe motives to them, if I can help it.
I think the one who acts should consider the consequences as well, not that it necessarily makes an act bad, or the actor, if unintended consequences occurs... but we should do our best to avoid them...
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I don't think there is such a thing as a selfless act. Even if you do something for someone else that you don't receive any material compensation for, generally you do it for the good feeling it gives you, or the fact that it makes you feel better about yourself/the world or because it makes you look better in other people's eyes. I think you always get something out of helping others. I think it's just a matter of whether or not you see much of a difference between that good reputation or that good feeling in your stomach and getting paid for it.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
In many charitable acts neither the giver nor the motive are known.
I would question the motives of any one who advertises their charitable acts.
At the very least the secret giver will feel some pleasure in their actions, what ever the initiating motive was.
I would question the motives of any one who advertises their charitable acts.
At the very least the secret giver will feel some pleasure in their actions, what ever the initiating motive was.
rojse
RF Addict
I have to agree with you on this. If you do charitable acts and have to tell someone about it, I would have to presume that the act of charity was done in order to tell that person about it, rather than out of a higher motive.
Why make it so esoteric? I'm thinking only those motives you are aware of hold any sort of meaning. Afterall, it's not dishonest if you truly believe you are doing something for such-and-such reason, but your sneaky unconcious holds a second, different reason you are unaware of.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Because you can literally google consequentialism and look at the second link and answer the question.