Useless Charities: Should They Support Widespread Causes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingNothing
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effectiveness and purpose of charities, particularly those focused on rare diseases versus more widespread causes. Participants explore the motivations behind charitable giving and the potential impact of supporting various causes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that charities for smaller-spread conditions might be more beneficial if they redirected their efforts towards more widespread causes.
  • Others argue that charities for rare diseases are often formed out of personal experiences and aim to fund research that is typically overlooked by larger organizations.
  • One participant expresses a belief that helping even small groups of people contributes positively to the world, regardless of the scale of the issue.
  • Concerns are raised about the effectiveness of certain charitable contributions, particularly regarding the potential for enabling negative behaviors among recipients.
  • Another viewpoint highlights the potential inequalities created by sponsorship programs, suggesting that broader community support may be more equitable than individual sponsorship.
  • Questions are posed about the role of international organizations like the WTO in addressing poverty, with skepticism about their effectiveness in aiding poorer countries.
  • Criticism is directed at the perceived disconnect between charitable giving in wealthier countries and the actions of their governments in conflict zones.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions on the value and impact of different types of charities, with no clear consensus on whether smaller charities should shift focus or the overall effectiveness of charitable giving.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on personal experiences and subjective interpretations of charity effectiveness, which may not be universally applicable. The discussion reflects diverse perspectives on the motivations for charitable giving and its implications.

KingNothing
Messages
880
Reaction score
4
Wouldn't you think that some of the charities for smaller-spread conditions would provide a bigger benefit to the world if they were out supporting a more widespread cause?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A lot of charities are formed for rare diseases because of the fact they are rare and not much attention or funding normally go to them because they are not profitable to pharmaceutical/research companies. The charities are often started after a loved one is stricken with the rare disease and often done in their name.
 
yeah, why help out the small groups of hungry people. Sacrifice the one for the good of the many.
Helping someone no matter how small is benefiting the world.
 
They really aren't out there to save the world, just the loved one they know who is afflicted with the disease. Evo is right, the reason they form charities is to fund research on things the government and industry won't fund.
 
you want to hear about a useless charity? I probably give away 20% of my paycheck everyweek to homeless people. and 9 times out of 10 I probably just provided them means to get another rock of crack. but maybe I also provide one of them with means to get a decent meal.
I got to get out of this thread. it's making me serious
 
Kingnothing, i agree with you to a large extend, not perfectly though.

I almost pay money to people in the street if i just sense that they may need help, even some people call me stupid. But some of them who carry alcohol bottles, wearing leather clothes, and good loddking jeans, and have athletic bodies, and they have "nice goaties" since they buy shave razors to shve...etc my answer to them will be: I will give an Axe, not money, go and cut wood and seel it and earn money, dude work!

When i was in high school, there were raising a money to fund a scholarship for a stundet which it worth 30,000 British pounds. I did not participate in a penny. i put the charity money i pay for people who needed for a more urgent need, rather than that scholarship, or at least i say thatr guy has a "media" behind him, so it is easy to him to get assessed, i will another human who only has hope on the other homo-sapiens to recognize that they share humanity with him...
 
Some of the charities (by no means useless charities) you want to watch out for are the sponser a child charities. While this is by no means a bad thing to want to do, it can create inequalities between families or siblings when a close friend keeps receiving free support while others get nothing. It can also cause problems when the sponsered child grows up, and the support stops. That is why charities such as Oxfam don't provide child sponsership schemes. They aregue that any donationn would be better used providing for an entire village or community, on something beneficial to everyone, not just one person.
 
Has anyone heard of things called Fair Trade?

If the WTO is controlled by the US and the WTO ****s every country up but the US, explain what the WTO/US can do to help these poor countries/people without spending a dime.
 
People are really mentally ****ed up in USA and Canada,where hundreds of charitiess exist and giving money to them to help poor peoples all over the world, while their government is killing innocent Iraqi civilians right before our eyes.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 107 ·
4
Replies
107
Views
32K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K