Starving African Children and Dogs with One Eye

[NSRndm]

Yeah, those ads. The ones with Sarah McLachlan's "Angel" playing in the background. You know, the ones where that one friend always feels the need to play devil's advocate, and assure you that they "give more of a shit about the dogs than the starving African kids." They've got me wondering. Do you think refraining from being charitable is an immoral act? If so, is it possible for someone to really be a moral person? See what I'm getting at?

 

[Laurent.]

I refrain from being altruistic, it's ultimately done for direct or indirect personal gain anyway. The possibility of true self-sacrifice without receiving anything in return is completely ruled out in my book. We get reminded that there are bad things, and they make us feel guilty, and we're offered the opportunity to give a little bit of money, or time or effort, in exchange for not having to feel that guilt. Guilt is a negative emotional sensation. It's stressful to experience, and guilt makes us unhappier. It's a horrible feeling. This is the purchase incentive for the guilt transaction. 'Donate', we're told, 'and we'll take the guilt away'.

Fuck that.

 

[no_steeze]

Being charitable purely based on guilt that arises from a commercial like that undermines the true intentions of charity and turns it more into a social competition of perceived virtue. I agree that if you have extra money you should help those in need, but the role of commercials should be to simply remind you of your options, not make you feel bad for choosing something different. I understand that would be a less successful marketing strategy, but by no means should you feel guilty, just think of those commercials as the same as a product advertisement that's doing everything it can to make you feel like you should buy into it

 

[Rusticles]