The moral inferiority of charity (Was: Re:[extropy-chat]Gametheoryofcommoncold

[Kevin Freels]

I don;t know about all of that. Charity goes back a long ways in our
history. Even in H neanderthalensis. There are many fossilized skeletons of
people who lived long after such serious injuries as amputation, severelt
broken limbs and/or rib cages, jaws partially torn off, and heads that were
more than a little cracked open.
The only way that these people could have survived would have been through a
concerted effort on the part of the group. This happened even though the
person was no longer an asset to the group and instead was a terrible drain.
Groups such as these almost never stayed in one place long, so for a person
to survive for sometimes years after these injuries, they would have had to
been carried from place to place.
With no benefit to the group and possibly putting the group at a
disadvantage, what would be the purpose in carrying this person around
rather than leaving them on their own?
I think the benefit is that the people "feel" better about themselves. When
people feel better, they are more productive. This may seem
counter-intuitive, but it also just may fit.
Kevin Freels
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal at smigrodzki.org>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:10 PM
Subject: The moral inferiority of charity (Was:
Re:[extropy-chat]Gametheoryofcommoncold


> Harvey wrote:
>
> >>> If I were a bitter old Libertarian clutching my
> >>> gun and grumping about all taxes being theft,
> >>> I would be so busy wallowing in my self-pity
> >>> and victim mentality that I would not give back
> >>> anything to anyone.
> >>
> >> I'm sure there are a few people like that out there, but
> >> almost all of the libertarians I know are not like that.
> >
> > Maybe not that extreme.  But you are already arguing that charity is
> > not as important as working, creating and making your own money.
>
> ### Of course! Charity is not an evolutionarily stable strategy for
> improving general welfare, except as a signaling device in competition for
> resources (attention, mates, cooperation). Cooperation in a reciprocal
> altruist fashion is stable ("making your own money" in the market), and
> should form the basis for evaluation of individuals and societies alike.
> Charity is obviously morally inferior than work and creation, because it
> doesn't create and for the most part doesn't increase welfare, indeed, may
> encourage a reduction in effort on the part of its recipients. Charity
feeds
> on work, and therefore is no more than a distraction - a nice one,
perhaps,
> to be mildly encouraged, like puppies and ikebana, but still a
distraction.
>
> Rafal
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>