Generosity for the sake of generosity

[theholygideons]

Perhaps the wise people of this forum could offer insights about a question that occurred to me recently.

The question I have is 'why should people be generous to others?'. I feel that the act of being generous is an endless pursuit, forced upon the individual by society.

I don't believe that 'it just feels good' is a valid answer, because then generosity would be reduced to a mere biochemical pleasure.

 

[chopinlover01]

I don't believe that 'it just feels good' is a valid answer, because then generosity would be reduced to a mere biochemical pleasure.

At the end of the day, all emotions we feel are biochemical, whether they be pleasures or pains.
As far as morality goes, it's probably an evolutionary trait to ensure the survival of our species. What we perceive as little can be a lot to someone else, so by occasionally giving that "little" away, we help preserve ourselves.

[theholygideons]

What we perceive as little can be a lot to someone else, so by occasionally giving that "little" away, we help preserve ourselves.

But then, where is the limit to how much we should give away in order to make us happy?

[chopinlover01]

But then, where is the limit to how much we should give away in order to make us happy?

The limit is however much you feel like it, bearing in mind your finances. Someone who makes 200K a year is in much better a position to donate to charity than someone who makes 20K a year.

[ahinton]

Perhaps the wise people of this forum could offer insights about a question that occurred to me recently.

The question I have is 'why should people be generous to others?'. I feel that the act of being generous is an endless pursuit, forced upon the individual by society.

I don't believe that 'it just feels good' is a valid answer, because then generosity would be reduced to a mere biochemical pleasure.

The only answer to this question for you will be provided as a consequence of asking yourself although if, for whatever reason or none, you genuinely believe that "the act of being generous" (be it financial or spiritual generosity) "is an endless pursuit, forced upon the individual by society", I don't hold out a great deal of hope for your finding it.

Best,

Alistair

[outin]

I'm usually generous simply because it really does not make a difference to me, so why not? Things that really mean something to me I probably would not be willing to give away even for someone in need, but material things are rarely among them.

OTOH I can look at the bigger picture and can see the problems created by charity as well. So I don't usually donate to charity organizations. I don't share the neoliberalistic views of people getting passive when helped, but I don't like the way charity is used to avoid finding real solutions to inequality and injustice.

[theholygideons]

The only answer to this question for you will be provided as a consequence of asking yourself although if, for whatever reason or none, you genuinely believe that "the act of being generous" (be it financial or spiritual generosity) "is an endless pursuit, forced upon the individual by society", I don't hold out a great deal of hope for your finding it.

Best,

Alistair

Yet, Mr. Sorabji managed just fine in his fancy mansion, a recluse completely apathetic towards the general population. What is it about serving humanity that I so fulfilling? Sorabji was motivated purely by his self-interests and curiosity

[theholygideons]

The limit is however much you feel like it, bearing in mind your finances. Someone who makes 200K a year is in much better a position to donate to charity than someone who makes 20K a year.

But you never addressed the 'why'. Your evolutionary argument suggests that such actions are only instinctive and does not account for any reasons pertaining to our higher selves.

[thalbergmad]

The limit is however much you feel like it, bearing in mind your finances. Someone who makes 200K a year is in much better a position to donate to charity than someone who makes 20K a year.

After 20 years working in a Bank, I can assure you that the ones earning 200K are the ones who are the most in debt and least likely to donate to charity.

Thal

[ahinton]

Yet, Mr. Sorabji managed just fine in his fancy mansion

Did he really, now? From what source (other than your imagination) did you derive that idea? He lived in a London apartment for many years before building himself a cottage on the Isle of Purbeck in Dorset when he was arond the age of 60 and he lived in that until a couple of years or so before his death at which time he had to relocate to a nearby nursing home beause of his state of health.

a recluse completely apathetic towards the general population

A recluse, certainly, but what mades you so certain about the rest of this?

Sorabji was motivated purely by his self-interests and curiosity

He was motivated at least in part by his curiosity, to be sure; that's surely a good thing. As to what else may have motivated him and to do what, I imagine that you have little if any idea; what do you actually iknow about him and where have you read it? Have you ever met anyone who actually knew him?

Better to do some homework and ascertain some provable facts first than to make bald and largely uncorroborated statements such as you have here and which do you few favours.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

After 20 years working in a Bank, I can assure you that the ones earning 200K are the ones who are the most in debt and least likely to donate to charity.

That would not at all surprise me; all that I can add to that is my sympathy that you did such a thing!

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

After 20 years working in a Bank, I can assure you that the ones earning 200K are the ones who are the most in debt and least likely to donate to charity.

Thal

Probably because people used to wallowing in money (especially when having gotten it rather than earned it) have never learned to manage their money and simply think it's something like oil and will never run out? (Mind you, I do know oil will run out!)
I assume also you will, from you not very much coveted (at least by me!) professional place, recognise my impression that when it comes to honest generosity people earning (or at least getting) 200K a year wil drop dead over a penny, but those who scrape by to buy some meagre bread will happily share it. Those with 200K will most likely donate (tax deductable, of course!) to whatever gets them in the biggest newspaper with the most humiliatedly gratefull recipient...

all best,
gep

[piulento]

I'm sorry to say, but it is just a biochemical reaction created by evolution.
Let's say we have a certain species. If that species includes a group of individuals that naturally (biochemicallly) feel good after doing something genrous, they'd be more likely to do it often, thus helping the species as a whole live on. Over time, more of these individuals would turn up, because generosity would be considered a good trait that helps the species survive (so the generous individuals would be more likely to reproduce), and at some point the species itself would be mainly based on generous individuals. At this point, there's no turning back really - naturally, some "selfish" individuals would turn up (and would have a pretty good chance of survival, because the rest of the species would still take care of them), but overall they can't be too dominant in the population, because the species already relies on generosity, and having too many selfish individuals would lower the species' chance of survival.
There is a very fine limit between selfish and generous in the human species, and there are various degrees of generosity (it depends both on genetics, environment and financial level), but overall, it's a trait that helps the human species survive, so it exists (because of thousands of years of mutation and naturall selection).
That's it, really. That's the reason.

[themeandvariation]

So surely, the 'act' precedes the biochemical response.. It is a chicken/egg at best… But if you (scientifically inclined for the ultimate understanding - of spirituality - ) insist you're a robot, or one of Pavlov's dogs, so be it.
Outin-
  'passive'?  what evidence besides fox news?

[outin]

Outin-
  'passive'?  what evidence besides fox news?

Please read my post again with a little bit more care. If you still think I' d be watching fox news I surely have expressed myself very poorly 

[themeandvariation]

Oh.. well, hush my mouth  
I missed the 'don't' in  'I don't share'..
my apologies.

.. probably my misinterpretation is a carryover of a (somewhat ) emotional reaction to the realization (to me) that there are far more of those who lean to the (far) right than i would expect on the music discussions on line that I visit..  Perhaps I should start a thread

[outin]

Oh.. well, hush my mouth 
I missed the 'don't' in  'I don't share'..
my apologies.

Accepted   

[theholygideons]

He was motivated at least in part by his curiosity, to be sure; that's surely a good thing. As to what else may have motivated him and to do what, I imagine that you have little if any idea; what do you actually iknow about him and where have you read it? Have you ever met anyone who actually knew him?

Please, enlighten me, for you were by his side more than anyone else in his latter years. It seems to me that he valued the divine experience of composing far greater than anything else. I feel like someone who is so isolated would be in the best position to objectively judge what the true reasons for living are. (As daft as I normally am on this forum, at this moment, I am being serious)