With this line of argument, there’s literally no point at which one can sit back and say, “I’ve fulfilled my duty to charity—there’s nothing more to do”.
That reminds me very strongly of something I read in a Jewish prayerbook, or possibly the Talmud, a long time ago. I can’t find it with google (translation being what it is), but here’s my best recollection:
“It is a command we are given repeatedly in Torah. But what does it really mean to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’? … Never would a man say ‘I have fulfilled my obligation to myself’. In the same way, you have never fulfilled your obligation to your neighbour.”
Taking the comparison back the other way raises what I think is an interesting question. People have no issues with the idea that your obligations to yourself are unbounded, so why does having unbounded obligations to others pose a problem?
There’s literally no point at which one can sit back and say, “I’ve fulfilled my duty to myself—there’s nothing more to do”.
Interesting point. If we really weighted our own wellbeing exactly the same as the wellbeing of others, we would just put our energy wherever it would be most helpful, regardless of whom we were helping. But we’re not psychologically built to really divide our caring by 7 billion people. Anyone who tried to divide their energy among that many would probably give up or die. People like Buddhist monks who put a lot of practice in may achieve this on some kind of psychological basis, but I don’t know of anyone who actually acts on it all the time.
In helping professions (nursing, social work, etc.) you’re taught to take care of yourself so you don’t burn out. Which does mean putting your own wellbeing ahead of an individual client’s, but in the long run it allows you to give more people better service. I think this is good practice for philanthropists, too.
That reminds me very strongly of something I read in a Jewish prayerbook, or possibly the Talmud, a long time ago. I can’t find it with google (translation being what it is), but here’s my best recollection:
“It is a command we are given repeatedly in Torah. But what does it really mean to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’? … Never would a man say ‘I have fulfilled my obligation to myself’. In the same way, you have never fulfilled your obligation to your neighbour.”
Taking the comparison back the other way raises what I think is an interesting question. People have no issues with the idea that your obligations to yourself are unbounded, so why does having unbounded obligations to others pose a problem?
There’s literally no point at which one can sit back and say, “I’ve fulfilled my duty to myself—there’s nothing more to do”.
Interesting point. If we really weighted our own wellbeing exactly the same as the wellbeing of others, we would just put our energy wherever it would be most helpful, regardless of whom we were helping. But we’re not psychologically built to really divide our caring by 7 billion people. Anyone who tried to divide their energy among that many would probably give up or die. People like Buddhist monks who put a lot of practice in may achieve this on some kind of psychological basis, but I don’t know of anyone who actually acts on it all the time.
In helping professions (nursing, social work, etc.) you’re taught to take care of yourself so you don’t burn out. Which does mean putting your own wellbeing ahead of an individual client’s, but in the long run it allows you to give more people better service. I think this is good practice for philanthropists, too.