Do you think its moral do record yourself giving out food or shit to the homeless and less fortunate and then put it up...

Do you think its moral do record yourself giving out food or shit to the homeless and less fortunate and then put it up on youtube for whatever reason?

I like some of the videos I see, but I just can't shake the feeling that people are doing this to get views and money because they are greedy capitalist faggots.

Whats your opinion? I'm really interested in what YOU have to say about this.

If you're gonna do a good deed, just do it.
No need to record it, no need to even mention you did it.
People that film themselves doing it might be doing good technically but they see it as paying for an ego boost... the fact they're doing a good deed comes second to the reactions it causes afterwards.

Thats what I was thinking. You don't need to film yourself doing it, even tho I enjoy occasionally watching it, I see that some of the youtubers are really just exploiting homeless people for the profit by giving them some stupid care package shit.

...

/thread

What you described is capitalism in a nutshell.

You pretend that you're doing something good for the little guy but in reality you're exploiting them.

Even just doing a good deed without recording it or whatever is an act of selfishness. If you're not doing it for fame or money then you are doing it to make yourself feel good. It's like a form of socially acceptable drug.

but what if you're not egoistic?

I think it's acceptable. Maybe there is an ulterior motive, but if the good deed is done all the same then it's worth it. It's about the same way as I feel about religion; you shouldn't need that extra nudge to be a good person, but if it's what leads you too it then by all means.

charities, religious groups, NGO's, etc. do this all the time...i think the fact this occurs is partly due to a feeling of helplessness and so its a call to action. does this get corrupted, of course its part of humanity and everything we touch does. i am still conflicted whether the good outweighs the bad, as it only seems to lessen the weight of the issue rather than actually dealing with it, in some instances it could and in others maybe it does little or worse it does harm. humanities systems are complex and the way we function upon those systems can be very perplexing to say the least. in conclusion, we live in an age of social media so it seems only natural for this to occur, overall i want to believe it does more good than harm because it does bring attention to an issue and i suppose in the end its in the eye of the beholder to weigh the actions.

No, because then it's less about the good deed and more about you broadcasting to people how good you are for doing it. It becomes an act of pride, not charity.

then you're probably mentally ill

OP here. I feel like that yes, it is bound to happen with all these social media and stuff, but do these videos really bring attention to the problem? Or does it teach the viewer that it is okay to give a few dollars and a bottle of water and that that in itself is enough? I'm really puzzled by it. Seems to me that we as a species are going towards more darker times than we can imagine and that people are becoming more and more superficial and self-centered.

He could still climb that ladder

why do you think the most brilliant/influential minds are pushing technology as hard as they are, we (most people) cannot be trusted with our own fate as more of us are made and the more we consume?

no. they are doing it for attention and praise. they are doing it for themselves.

i dont think giving money or food to the homeless is worthwhile anyway. i could give every one of them a tenner and a sandwich every time i see them and they'd still be there. there are shelters and programs to help you out of that situation - i dont understand why these people don't hound these kinds of organisations. it's the only hope.

What if they are using the proceeds in order to live, and use the profits to provide more food.

That's how non-profits work.

And they're not exploiting the homeless. unless they're flat out lying and talking the food away right after they get their shot. So nothing unethical or amoral, really.

Charity only goes so far.

>cont.
with our technological advances we have drifted further off into our own small little bubbles unable to really see the larger picture, how we have got to this point in our species brief spectrum in time and what are presence means/does to everything given time.

/thread!

perhaps that's all it is, a bandaid to their addiction to poverty. however, one day it will occur to them to wish for more and take the steps you've said are within their reach to guide them out of it.

exactly this, most of the youtubers i see doing this shit will make a great deal more from the video than they lose from their donation, negating the selfless side entirely.

He could burn those fucking side poles

>one day it will occur to them to wish for more

Except it won't

I don't give a shit

except that their good deed usually amounts to handing out 50 bucks worth of sandwiches and calling it a day. If it were an ongoing thing or they donated a decent amount to an organisation who could actually be of some decent half-decent help, i might say you were onto something. But as it stands, its not even a bandaid for a broken leg, its a toffee and a smug grin for a cripple.

i've seen first hand people pull themselves out of very similar circumstances, perhaps you're just unconsciously bias to such a thing occurring.

Maybe it's not as much as they could be, or should be doing, but if that sort of recognition is the only reason that they're doing it at all then what's the harm in it? It's still 50 dollars worth of sandwiches being handed out that this sort of person otherwise wouldn't be bothered with donating. The right thing for the wrong reason is still the right thing.

Unless someone else just happens to record it, it's a sham to stroke their ego.

>"Oh look, I dun good!"
Ok... Having been homeless myself for a time, I've been told by others that they hate being recorded and thinking about it, I wouldn't either. Way to call more attention to my shame, faggot...but thanks for the grub.

so, the individual should do nothing and hope someone else comes along to aid them in their time of poverty? i dont think most are holding these individuals as benevolent, but rather just doing something than just keep walking pretending as if they didn't exist, which might i add further drives their addiction to poverty as they feel unwanted by society or ignored and their sense of hopelessness is the only thing remaining so they do nothing, but wait for anything that resembles them being worthy of existing.

If you do something because you truly feel a need or desire to do it because it is good, then recognition or acknowledgement doesn't come into play. If you record it to perhaps show how you can make a difference for someone then the intention can still be pure but if you know in your own mind that you're truly hoping to be celebrated or applauded as someone who does these things frequently, e.g. someone who posts lengthy statuses about how you gave a homeless guy or wayward traveler a sandwich or some cash every week or two, then you're doing it for you and the good is just a byproduct of your narcissism. It's not bad but it is tainted by selfish motivation.

do you think people in conflict areas around the planet resent photographers? "my child just died from a bombing, you fucking bastard don't take pictures please!"

If you do a good deed dont go round and brag about it because your then only doing it to make your own image better and not to actually help a person

OP's question is about morality, which pertains to the reasoning and not the results

Panhandling should be a summary execution offense for the sole reason that I'm tired of seeing threads about it on Sup Forums

People are only doing it for self gratification you're right, but even so they are doing a good thing, and wanting reward for doing something good isn't such an unforgivable thing.
Also if their act of kindness may inspire others so all the better.

But there's still someone that's helped even if it's really just in the name of self-interest, I really don't get why all of you are so hung up on admittedly douchy people getting off on their own "charity", it's still charity. Yes they could donate more, they could do it indirectly, they could be compassionate fuckin' saints that turn everything they own outward to give back to those less fortunate. But they aren't, they're douches, and if it's not for these kinds of minor shows of humanity that may be forced and insincere as you're thinking, maybe some homeless person wouldn't get a fucking sandwich that they're handing out for their hubris.

they probably do, they're just more preoccupied with grieving to say that

Actually that's wrong and you're an idiot

OP here, but isn't this same as, for example, being good just because you think there is a God, or being good just because it says so in the bible?

OP here, he's right

initially yes, but then they want someone to see what happen and even then perhaps there is a sense of being uncomfortable about the whole thing. there's the way the world should be and the way the world is, in between all that resides a clusterfuck of things happening which could be interpreted many ways

I do think so, they're after that reward in whatever form (fame, promotion, just jerkin' their own dicks and bein' smug). But if it's for the greater good then why is it bad?

>addiction to poverty
You've used this phrase twice now and it's really pretty dumb. 25% of homeless have severe and untreated mental health problems. 15% are physically disabled. 11% are veterans. No one who studies the issue with any seriousness would call it "addiction to poverty."

What's your reason for doing good? For its own sake?

>give money
It is nice, but it doesn't help them out of poverty

>insert give vs teach a man to fish quote


>video
Just want to show they are doing good or may need evidence for irs when they wonder where money went like 20 years ago (((keep all receipts)))

>there's the way the world should be
according to who?

OP here, honestly, I feel deep empathy towards all people and animals.

all of that is what i mean when i say, 'poverty addiction' that can develop a cycle because how people were driven into these circumstances.

I don't know what your morals are but if truth is one of them then yes it's moral. Every 'good deed' is done with the idea of some kind of reward either explicit or implied. Those who deny this basic fact are lying.

I may live 60-80 years on this planet, once and never again. That very short period of time should be, in my opinion, filled with making other people feel like they are needed and giving them some unconditional love and support.

fundamentally, all societies want very basic means...however, they may disagree to what extent those means should be interpreted as.

Whooooa, fuck that. Totally separate conversation, but I've come to believe after a mid-life crisis that there's really nothing that you'll ever be able to do to impact the world in the way you want. Even compassion to others is forgotten in a generation. I think you should live for yourself, do whatever makes you happy. And if that means living for others because that's what makes you happy then that's great.

OP here, I don't know if I would say that being empathetic comes with an "idea of some kind of reward explicit or implied". That's my honest opinion.

I'm not this guy but he's right. It's not a conscious thing, and you may not consider it to even be a reward. But empathetic people even at their best still feel that chemical rush and uplift that comes with making others happy, it's still something that you'd subconsciously seek.

Why is making yourself feel good and helping another person so wrong? That kind of selfishness is at least the most humane. And you feel good because you know you helped somebody, that your not a reclusive asshole, that you care about other people. You should feel good after doing such things.

Witnessed

I should have put it better. I am not living for other people. I can be very selfish at times. BUT - I will always think about how my actions influence others and will always strive for a better understanding and communication.

On the topic of "but I've come to believe after a mid-life crisis that there's really nothing that you'll ever be able to do to impact the world". I don't look at the life in that way. But I would somewhat agree with the second part of that sentence and call it a half truth. If you make yourself happy, you will go out and make others feel your happiness with you, no doubt.

oh boy... please kys

No it's not really moral, even though are doing something nice...its for the wrong reasons.

OP here, there is no shame in feeling good about doing good.

Present your argument. "Oh boy kill yourself" is a non-argument.

OP here, do you think this guy did it for a reward of any kind? Or do we have some kind of biological mechanism that is being triggered when we see helpless people cause we fear that one day we might end up like that? I don't know.

youtube.com/watch?v=hA9DcE7mN7E

People dont do good deeds for other people they do it to feel better about themselves. They will also only do it if the deed isnt terribly detrimental to their own situation. Every single goddamn person looks out for #1 only. To suggest anyone does other wise is insane.

I feel like this is some new-age bullshit that is being told over and over again until it becomes the truth. Most of the mothers (except psychopathic ones) are complete exception to this. Also, you have people who voluntarily go to military so they can protect their lands, offsprings and shit.

raising child with the expectation that they take care of you later in life is far from selfless

"Integrity is what you do when no ne is watching."
- no idea who said this

I think what it really comes down to is intent. If they're trying to make money from ads or if they're trying to get attention or kudos from people, then yes, it would not be considered a moral thing to do in my opinion.

I see a lot of companies who put the pink ribbon on the package or something similar.

One of the battery companies have a big fancy painted truck and they drive into areas where there have been tornadoes and hand out batteries and then post it on Facebook and Twitter.

If you're going to do good, do good. If you're doing good just to make a buck off of it, suck a giant dick.

Agreed dude.

I think part of it too is mental gymnastics of selfish people saying people that do good are also selfish, so they don't feel as bad not doing anything

Yeah to some extent, but I still think that people can be very selfless and not put themselves at #1 at all times. I watched some videos on youtube where people basically gave up everything they had to help others in need.

who fucking cares, if you want to help someone just do it, it doesn't matter what you do anyway

I saw a video of a faggot giving homeless people 3 options: alcohol, food, or money. Most of them chooses food, but the faggot that offers has fucking nice clothes and just doing it so that he can upload it. Disgusting

I'm interested: Do you think that giving out to the homeless for the reasons of getting the money and youtube revenue and whatnot, is better than not giving at all?

I didn't mean to imply that it was wrong. But I don't think it's right either, it just is.

I reckon something it's better than nothing, but the homeless dude is forced to accept what is being offered to him, the other dude is just playing a sick experiment with the needs of other people to prove a point. The give should just give him the food say have a good day and that's it

Not him, but I dont. I don't think I'd want to receive it that way even if I were in need. It would feel doubly bad. Like I was a trained poodle. Basically you're grovelling and lapping up scraps solely for other people's amusement and entertainment.

The people who make those videos are apparently blessed by circumstance as they are not smart enough to make money another way.

they still get the self satisfaction of doing the deed. Whether they think of it as salvation of their souls, or some form of moral superiority, they are gaining something from it

>chose alcohol
>smash bottle and shank faggot
>take food, money, and the faggots shitty gopro

OP here, I 100% agree with this. It would probably suck being in a situation where some fucking plastic perfect people with perfectly white teeth were smiling in my face while dishonestly sympathizing with me and giving me some cheap stuff, so they can receive acceptance and sympathies from other people for "helping me". It makes me sick when I think that this is current the current reality.

If the video is monetized, with a promise to use the funds for future charity work, then go for it. This can be used for all sort of good things.