You’re not a good person if you need it to be acknowledged by others. That’s precisely what leads to perverse performative behaviors, and stupid shit like volentourism, where everyone is being exploited to generate a image for the customer that they have done something selfless and good for someone else, when all it’s done is line the pockets of the people who run those orgs.
Frankly, I quite a volunteer org two years ago because they decided the good they were doing had to be acknowledged publicly, and they should get money, and the people involved should get a cut of that money… oh and we should only help the ‘most unfortunate’ people because that will score us more points/money… that’s no longer volunteering. That’s your typical capitalism mindset in a non-profit coating. Don’t do things for people unless you can get maximum return from your effort…
I think you really believe that the world is as black and white as you think it is.
Good luck with that.
Doing a good deed and telling someone about it because it made you and someone else feel good is not an inherently bad thing and you clearly lack the nuance to understand any different.
Eh, if we are being cynical then we could extrapolate that same cynicism to conclude that there is no such thing as altruism. That any act of kindness is actually motivated by self interest, whether that be being seeking external praise for their deeds or just internal self-aggrandizement.
At the end of the day does the motivation for the good deed really matter? Or is it just more important that a little girl had a great birthday when she may have not been able otherwise. Exploitation is defined by its harm to the person being exploited. If the baker took a picture or named the mother and that led to public shame, then yeah that could be exploitative.
Without anyone experiencing harm in this hypothetical scenario, I don’t really see a reason to think negatively about the situation. It just runs against your subjective preconceived notions of what defines a “good person”, and in reality that’s not really an objective thing you could actually measure.
No. You don’t.
You’re not a good person if you need it to be acknowledged by others. That’s precisely what leads to perverse performative behaviors, and stupid shit like volentourism, where everyone is being exploited to generate a image for the customer that they have done something selfless and good for someone else, when all it’s done is line the pockets of the people who run those orgs.
Frankly, I quite a volunteer org two years ago because they decided the good they were doing had to be acknowledged publicly, and they should get money, and the people involved should get a cut of that money… oh and we should only help the ‘most unfortunate’ people because that will score us more points/money… that’s no longer volunteering. That’s your typical capitalism mindset in a non-profit coating. Don’t do things for people unless you can get maximum return from your effort…
So we just assume the intention is always malice.
That’s an exhausting way to live
you’re the one who can’t think in anything other than absolutes.
I think you really believe that the world is as black and white as you think it is.
Good luck with that.
Doing a good deed and telling someone about it because it made you and someone else feel good is not an inherently bad thing and you clearly lack the nuance to understand any different.
I feel bad for you.
cool, i feel bad for you that nothing has any value unless you can brag about it to someone else.
Eh, if we are being cynical then we could extrapolate that same cynicism to conclude that there is no such thing as altruism. That any act of kindness is actually motivated by self interest, whether that be being seeking external praise for their deeds or just internal self-aggrandizement.
At the end of the day does the motivation for the good deed really matter? Or is it just more important that a little girl had a great birthday when she may have not been able otherwise. Exploitation is defined by its harm to the person being exploited. If the baker took a picture or named the mother and that led to public shame, then yeah that could be exploitative.
Without anyone experiencing harm in this hypothetical scenario, I don’t really see a reason to think negatively about the situation. It just runs against your subjective preconceived notions of what defines a “good person”, and in reality that’s not really an objective thing you could actually measure.