Donate money to charities, not to beggars

We all want people to work, not beg. Working is productive; begging is at best neutral and often a burden and a nuisance. There is no guarantee that the beggar who receives the money will spend it in ways that increase the quality of his life. He might well spend the money on alcohol or drugs.

• Few coins that we give to a beggar, doesn't make begging a lucrative activity and promotes laziness.
• Giving money to beggars, you are helping the wrong people.
• Think in social context: if I don’t help the beggar, who will? 
• You are likely to give your money to the beggars who already get the most from other givers. Like everyone else, you are also likely to give the most money to the ones with the locations, looks, and tricks that prompt people to give.
• If you give money to beggars on impulse, chances are that you end up giving to wrong people but not to the poor men and women whose appearances have less power to elicit sympathy and guilt in passers by and who occupy less favorable spots in the city.
• The vast majority of beggars living in the developed world have a quality of life that millions in the developing world can only dream of. 
• If our aim is to benefit ourselves, then giving money to beggars is sub optimal. If our aim is to benefit others, then giving money to beggars is also sub optimal. Either way, giving money to beggars is wasteful.

In seeking to help others, we should not merely give to those who are geographically close to us and whose appearance elicits our sympathy. Rather, we should give to those who are the worst off, who can be helped the most, and who are the least responsible for the situation that they’re in. To achieve this, we should (i) consciously decide how much of our money we are willing to spend on helping others, (ii) find the most efficient charity, (iii) donate money to that charity, and (iv) say no the next time a beggar asks if we can spare a dime.

Aid should go where it will help most.

Beggars are very unfortunate lot deprived of wealth, health, nutritious food, shelter, clothes, education and almost everything we are blessed with. Expecting from the beggars things which we and our friends doesn't follow in day to day living is height of hypocrisy and speaks poorly about our empathetic abilities. Dropping coin into the beggar's bowl and expecting divine results is stupidity. Dropping few coins in beggars bowl neither makes receiver rich nor impoverishes the giver. Hence dropping coin in beggars bowl must not be analysed too much. Just give and forget. By dropping few coins, we are not doing any great thing or any reason for the beggar to be grateful. Beggars have no right to create any kind of public nuisance.

It's immoral to be rich

Being extremely wealthy is impossible to justify in a world containing deprivation. There is a lot of public discussion about inequality, but there seems to be far less talk about just how patently shameful it is to be rich. There are plenty of people on this earth who die because they cannot afford to pay for medical care. There are elderly people who become homeless because they cannot afford rent. There are children living on streets, there are mothers who can’t afford diapers for their babies. And all of it could be ameliorated if people who had lots of money simply gave those other people their money. It’s deeply shameful to be rich. It’s not a morally defensible thing to be rich. 

• White families in America have 16 times as much wealth on average as black families. This is indisputably because of slavery, which was very recent.
• Larry Ellison of Oracle bought the island of Lanai. It’s kind of extraordinary that a single human being can just own the sixth-largest Hawaiian island, but that’s what concentrated wealth leads to.
• Every dollar you have is a dollar you’re not giving to somebody else, the decision to retain wealth is a decision to deprive others.
• It is sometimes claimed that CEOs get paid too much, or that the super-wealthy do not pay enough in taxes. There is no problem in CEOs getting paid as much as the company decides to pay them. And taxes are certainly a tyrannical form of legalized theft. But the question is of the morality of their retaining wealth after it is given to them.
• The process by which those rich people attained their wealth is totally consensual. People on the right often defend wealth along these lines. I earned it, therefore it’s not unfair for me to have it. But the question is that regardless of how you have earned it, to what degree you are morally permitted to retain it? 
• It’s one thing to argue that you got rich legitimately. It’s another to explain why you feel justified in spending your wealth upon houses and sculptures rather than helping some struggling people. There may be nothing unseemly about the process by which a basketball player earns his millions. But there’s certainly something unseemly about his having those millions. 
• If the problem of inequality is systemic, and rich people do not really make choices but pursue their class interests, then asking them whether it is moral for wealthy people to retain their wealth is irrelevant and incoherent. 
• Giving away wealth in the form of charity is actually bad, because it allows capitalism to look superficially generous without actually altering the balance of power in the society. “The worst slave owners were those who were kind to their slaves, because they prevented the core of the system from being realized by those who suffered from it,” as Oscar Wilde ludicrously put it.
• Moral duty becomes greater the more wealth you have. The super-rich, the infamous millionaires and billionaires, are constantly squandering resources that could be used to create wonderful and humane things. If you’re a billionaire, you could literally open a hospital and make it free. You could help make sure no child ever had to go without lunch.
• Everyone who earns anything beyond is obligated to give away the excess in its entirety. The refusal to do so means intentionally allowing others to suffer, a statement which is true regardless of whether you “earned” or “deserved” the income you were originally given. 
• Wealthy people do give away money often in piecemeal and self-interested and foolish ways. They’ll donate to colleges with huge endowments to get needless buildings built and named after them. David Geffen will pay to open a school for the children of wealthy. Mark Zuckerberg will squander millions of dollars trying to fix Newark’s schools by hiring $1000-a-day-consultants. Brad Pitt will try to build homes for Katrina victims in New Orleans, but will insist that they’re architecturally cutting-edge and funky looking, instead of just trying to make as many simple houses as possible. Just as the rich can’t be trusted to spend their money well generally, they’re colossally terrible at giving it away. This is because so much is about self-aggrandizement, and “philanthropy” is far more about the donor than the donee. 
• If you’re a multi-billionaire, giving away $1 billion is morally meaningless and you’re still incredibly wealthy, and thus still harming many people through your retention of wealth. You have to get rid of all of it, beyond the maximum moral income. 

It is not justifiable to retain vast wealth. This is because that wealth has the potential to help people who are suffering, and by not helping them you are letting them suffer. It does not make a difference whether you earned the vast wealth. The point is that you have it. We should acknowledge that it is immoral to be rich. 

Read the source article

I don’t hate capitalism, I just hate rich people.

If you are an egalitarian, how come you are so rich - GA Cohen 

Rich do not deserve their wealth - Robert Nozick 

Extreme wealth is indefensible

What is difficult to understand about those who make millions of dollars a year is why they ever need that kind of money for? Who could ever use that much? What are they even spending it on? Why do they actually want it?

• These people live like monarchs. They live in almost ludicrous luxurious excess.They make no effort to curb their consumption. 
• When they want something, like a piece of designer clothing or a fancy dinner, they simply buy it. An expensive meal does not require an occasion. If the family wants to go out to a pricey restaurant, they just do it.
• They don’t have to do household chores. Everything is taken care of by the housekeeper, gardener, housemaid, driver etc. It is difficult to fathom living like this.
• Yet most of their income still just gets tossed into their savings account. This is truly extraordinary. 
• Whether increased taxes on the wealthy will have useful consequences is arguable. What is unimaginable is that increased taxation would deprive these people in any serious way.
• These people donating to charities may not exceed 1% of their annual income. It’s almost as if they care far more about feeling like they are charitable than actually being charitable.
• They rarely encounter criticism for the moral aspects of this kind of life. In wealthy circles, everyone has a strong interest in allowing each other to feel like they are good people. So if one person mentions about their donating to charities, the friend is unlikely to criticize. Rarely do elites tell other elites that it is wrong to be an elite, for obvious reasons. 
• And the most contact this person has with the working class probably comes during chance encounters with the pool man, who is unlikely to voice any judgment he may secretly hold about their decadent bourgeois habits.
• Even $400,000 annually is far too much to live on. It is very difficult to even grasp the amount of money possessed by the 20 people who own more than half the country’s wealth. If it takes a lot of effort to fritter away $400,000 each year, imagine how the billionaires struggle to think of things to buy. That’s why their spending becomes outright ludicrous. Once you go past the first million, there’s not really much more pleasure you can buy, so you have to resort to nonsense.
• The tax policy implications are debatable. But it’s uncontroversial to conclude that the possession of enormous wealth, especially in a time of great suffering, is just indefensible in every way. Even $400,000 a year provides enough to live in extreme luxury. Anything over that is just obscene. 
• Risk-taking investors deserve higher returns, but actual returns do not necessarily reflect merit. The determining quality of  billionaires is to be lucky -- the other qualities being necessary but not sufficient. And luck is not meritocratic.

Inequality does not cause poverty. Capitalism has resulted in much more economic inequality in China, but much less poverty. Studies have shown that lower taxes for the wealthy don't necessarily result in increased economic growth. Extreme wealth contributing to inequality were seen as irrelevant and a prerequisite for the growth that would also help the poorest, as the wealth created trickled down to the benefit of everyone. But rather than creating jobs and lifting others out of poverty super-rich minorities cause social unrest and depress demand for goods and services, limiting growth and innovation as a result. Extreme wealth causes extreme inequality that impedes poverty alleviation, slows economic growth, compounds gender inequality, drives inequality in health and education outcomes, undermines economic mobility over generations, fuels crime, undermines social cohesion, and harms democracy.

Read the source article

That man is rich, whose pleasures are the cheapest ... Henry David Thoreau
Honesty is incompatible with amassing a large fortune ... Mahatma Gandhi 

At least 50% of the world’s billionaire wealth is non-meritocratic owing to either inheritance or a high presumption of cronyism. Another 15% is not meritocratic owing to presumption of monopoly. All of it is non-meritocratic owing to globalization. By contrast, crime and technology are found to be negligible sources of extreme wealth. The argument that "These eight billionaires, through the salaries and stock paid to their employees and the stock owned by millions of shareholders, have made millions of people rich and improved the lives of billions of people through the use of their products. They have not made anybody poor." is fine but governments must tax them at higher tax rates and spend the proceeds for accelerating eradication of poverty. These billionaires have a greater obligation for contributing for this cause. 

Empathy deficit disorder

• You may not realize it, but a great number of people suffer from empathy deficit disorder (EDD). Although empathy has become something of a political buzzword, it is surprisingly difficult to define. Its meaning has shifted significantly over time. 
• Empathy deficit is a highly consequential characteristic of antisocial personality disorder, a psychodynamic formulation.The origin, maintenance, and possible resolution of this profound deficit are not very clear. 
• Sympathy is, "I understand how you feel" whereas Empathy is, "I feel how you feel." Even the narcissist can be sympathetic. Empathy is certainly more important and that builds healthy, mutual relationships, an essential part of mental health.
• Normal variations of mood and temperament are increasingly redefined as new disorders. The EDD is becoming more pronounced in today's world.
• Empathy excess is much rarer than empathy deficit. While people with empathy excess suffer alone, those with empathy deficits cause others to suffer. Or at least some of them do.
• Zero-positive empathy people are with autism but their systemising nature means they are drawn to patterns, regularity and consistency. They are likely to follow rules and regulations and the patterns of civic life. Zero-negatives empathy people are with borderline antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. They are capable of inflicting physical and psychological harm on others and are unmoved by the plight of those they hurt.
• Given that testosterone is found in higher quantities in men than women, it may come as no surprise that men score lower on empathy than women. Another biological factor is genetics. 
• Our increasingly polarized social and political culture of the past few years reveals that EDD is more severe than ever. It has profound consequences for the mental health of both individuals and society. Yet it's ignored as a psychological disturbance by most mental health professionals.
• EDD keeps you locked inside a self-centered world, and that breeds emotional isolation, disconnection and polarization. That's highly dangerous in today's interconnected, globalized world. 
• Lack of empathy has consequences for the most vulnerable and for politicians too.
• More troubling are differences in empathy and compassion between upper classes and lower classes. Higher class individuals actually had a more difficult time recognizing emotions in others. Lower classes develops more perceptive social skills than the upper in making empathetic connections. Lower class individuals proved to be more generous, charitable, trusting and helpful compared to upper classes. Upper-class people, in spite of all their advantages, suffer empathy deficits and there are enormous consequences. 
• One of the more surprising and confounding facts of charity in America is that people who can least afford to give are the ones who donate greatest percentage of their income. Those with earnings in the top 20% contributed 1.3% of their income to charity and those in bottom 20% donated 3.2% of their income.
• Overcoming EDD is easier than you may think. Literally, you do feel another's pain or other emotions. You can overcome EDD by retraining your brain through conscious practices. Generosity and altruistic behavior light up pleasure centers of the brain. In effect, what you think and feel is what you become. And it means you can learn to grow empathy and overcome EDD. 
• Empathy could also be taught in schools. Surely beliefs are a much bigger cause of evil than biology or upbringing.
• The rush to harsh judgment with troubling frequency is amplified by social media. In social media, anyone can share with the world their own hasty conclusions formed more by the pressure to be first rather than to be fair.
• Trolling is now reasonably common but rudeness is barely given a second thought before self-publication, displays a massive empathy deficit, a reckless indifference to others.
• Being able to see different points of view is what helps people to be reasonable, or you don't understand someone until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.
• When strangers told each other about painful moments in their lives, there was more empathy expressed by the less powerful person. 
• The most effective leaders are outstanding at abilities that build on empathy, like persuasion and influence, motivating and listening, teamwork and collaboration. This fact of social life poses a danger for leaders.
• A remarkable number of people who are supposed to be devoting their lives to representing others seem clueless about how their constituents actually live and what they need.
• Leaders at higher levels are most in danger of coming down with empathy deficit disorder, as you rise through the ranks fewer and fewer people are candid with you, willing to give you frank feedback on how you seem to others.
• Almost two-thirds of working Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. And they’re worried sick about whether their kids will ever make it. They need leaders who understand their plight instead of denying it. At the very least, they need leaders who empathize with what they’re going through, not those with EDD.
• According to Barack Obama, the "empathy deficit" is a more pressing political problem for America than the federal deficit.

 

Empathy deficit disorder -- do you suffer from it?

Read the source article

Modi's decisions of demonetisation, GST etc subjecting large numbers of lower classes to avoidable hardships, loss of jobs, income erosion, destruction of economy, agrarian distress and so on are reflection of enormous empathy deficit disorder suffered by him and pointing needles towards his authoritarian tendencies & attitudes. Modi’s penchant for style and no substance has a chilling similarity with Mussolini’s Fascist Italy with less concerns for efficient governing of people in solving their economic problems but focused more on the spectacle of power, on the visual and impressive display of symbols, myths and rituals. His focus is only on strategies for winning elections one after another and anything else is part of this larger scheme of things for achieving his goal by any means no matter what ever is the price the nation has to pay. So far people were mesmerized to believe his sincerity but all the people cannot be fooled all the times.

Man of the Millennium

An epitome of selfless service, P. Kalyanasundaram is a fine example of simple living and high thinking. He practices Gandhian principles without bothering whether the world takes notice of them or not.

A will to serve combined with a sense of social justice has been the guiding principle of P. Kalyanasundaram, who has spent over 45 years in social service. A gold medallist in library science, he is also an MA in literature and history. During his 35-year-career as a librarian at the Kumarkurupara Arts College at Srivaikuntam in Tuticorin district, he gave away all his salary for charity and did odd jobs to meet his daily needs. He has also come forward to donate his body and eyes to the Tirunelveli Medical College.

The Union Government has acclaimed him as `The Best Librarian in India'. He has also been chosen as `one of the top ten librarians of the world'. The International Biographical Centre, Cambridge, has honoured him as `one of the noblest of the world', while the United Nations Organisation adjudged him as one of the Outstanding People of the 20th Century'. An American organisation has also selected him as the `Man of the Millennium.'

Mr. Kalyanasundaram also founded a social welfare organisation, `Paalam'.

SIMPLICITY IN life and exemplariness in practice has been the hallmark of Mr. Kalyanasundaram. Born in August 1953 at Melakarivelamkulam in Tirunelveli district, he lost his father at a very young age. It was his mother, who inspired him to serve the poor.

When he was at college, the Indo-China war broke out, and he contributed his gold chain to the then Chief Minister, Kamaraj, for the war fund. At this time around, he went to meet Balasubramanian, Editor, Ananda Vikatan. "He sent me away, saying he would write about me the day I donated something I had earned myself. I did not speak a word to anyone about what I had done. I took it as a challenge," Mr. Kalyanasundaram recalls. Ever since he got a job as a librarian in Tuticorin, he has contributed all his salary, pension benefits and ancestral property to social welfare. It was not until 1990, when he received his pension arrears and contributed it to the Collector's Fund, that the then Tiruneveli Collector felicitated him, despite his protests. The `Paalam' serves as a bridge between donors and beneficiaries: it collects money and materials from those willing to donate and distribute them among the weaker sections. It has also contributed to the cyclone relief funds in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa, and has helped the earthquake victims in Maharashtra and Gujarat. "We cannot sustain ourselves, unless we contribute towards the society in someway or the other. I strongly feel if even one person does his bit towards social good, there will be some change," he asserts.

Mr. Kalyanasundaram feels that one must achieve something in his chosen field. His contribution to library science is immense. A thesis he submitted as part of his post-graduate course to the Madurai Kamaraj University fetched him distinction. He has also hit upon an easy way of tracing and accessing books in libraries.

His ability to strike a rapport even with youngsters is remarkable. He cites the instance when he started wearing khadi. At college, he was required to take classes on Gandhianism. "I had to speak about simplicity and everything Gandhi stood for, but I was clad in expensive clothes. That was when I decided to switch over to khadi," he relates. Since then he had always practised what he stood for, making himself a role model for many youths.

He was popular among college and school students, and many of them have joined his organisation.

He has long-term plans for his organisation. One is the setting up of a nationalised digital library with modern equipment, which could be accessed by people from all walks of life.

He also wants to set up an international children's university in Tamil Nadu, with foreign aid. However, he says, a mission has a meaning only when the right people are involved in it. The Directorate of Public Libraries should recruit people with a library science background to be librarians, he says. "And good librarians should have a broad knowledge of everything."

"I am a bachelor and my personal needs are meagre. I am able to manage doing odd jobs in a hotel or a laundry. I simply do not wish to own anything. In fact, one of my happiest moments was when, after being chosen as the `Man of the Millennium' by an American organisation, I donated the entire amount of Rs. 30 crores I received towards charity. Everything is, therefore, a state of mind. Finally, what do we take with us when we leave planet earth?" Kalyanasundaram wonders aloud!

http://www.thehindu.com/lf/2004/08/22/stories/2004082209260200.htm

http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2003/04/23/stories/2003042300060300.htm