Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryuuchin | Hacker News Reader

Reminds me of the quote by George Steinbrenner[1].

"If you do something nice for somebody, and more than just the two of you know about it, maybe you're doing it for the wrong reason"

[1] https://tree.mindbloom.com/apps/inspiration/detail/quote/563...

View on HN

The Bible teaches this too.

Yes, but it's tied up in a bunch of other bits like not eating pork and worshipping a particular deity.

The secular quip raises the same questions about human motivations without the other baggage.

Because clearly George Steinbrenner is a better moral teacher than Jesus.

If GS taught the same without claiming to be the son of god, then yes.

Jesus didn't talk about eating pork or not though.

True, but he did teach about not doing good deeds just to show off, which was the original point.

Please keep HN threads free of religious flamewar. The parent comment wasn't particularly substantive but veering into general litigation of (biblical) religion definitely leads nowhere good. All such discussions are the same and therefore off-topic here.

This quote really irritates me; if we don't allow people to be judged by the good they do, more people die, because fewer people give. It's as simple as that. People shouldn't just feel free to talk about how they are contributing to saving lives, they should be encouraged. Introducing a social stigma that one isn't allowed to be publically happy or proud of doing good is cruel and counterproductive.

I have personal cynical hypotheses about why the state of affairs is as it is. None of it has to do with the qualities of those who donate.

Many people are recognized for doing good without needing to tell people they're doing good. If you feel you're doing good and not being recognized for it then maybe the kind of good you're doing isn't really necessary.

It's called being humble.

I'm sure all those people who didn't die of malaria but otherwise would have disagree on whether said intervention was necessary. If the virtues of being "humble" mean another billion people die of easily preventable diseases, fuck being humble.

Are you Bill Gates? Then by all means use your high profile to promote your cause.

If you're joe millionaire the only reason you're putting your name on something is because you have status anxiety. You know it, the people you're giving the money to know it and the public knows it. This goes 1000x more for the $20 donation you brag about on facebook.

Or maybe people want to be allowed to talk about the charity they do because it's important to them and talking about it encourages other people to join in.

Painting givers who want to discuss as selfish narcissists, as you have, is unkind. More importantly, it means more people die preventable deaths.

A more measured argument than my own is at Giving What We Can: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2016/08/its-good-to-tal....

Notice that these are two distinct things; talking about a charity (even saying you gave) and telling people how much you gave. Sometimes you don't even have to say how much you gave because your name on the Harvard dining hall speaks for itself.

It's not exactly a secret that donating money is often about more than altruism or stopping "preventable deaths."

Even if you believe in the cause you're donating to in the purest most altruistic sense you should know that the conversation is tainted for any rational person living in the real world. No one but people either kissing your ass or trying to get their hand in your pocket is going to hear "I give 10% of my income to save lives" no matter how dignified you think that sounds.

Or as your link says:

>You can't have a good friendship if you hide your true beliefs or feelings, including about effective giving.

I wouldn't be a good friend if I didn't say everything I said above about the "10% donation" proposal. The question is would you be a good friend to someone who disagreed? Or are your friendships predicated on "when I share something I feel strongly about you either agree or are basically complicit in killing 40 people?"

> you should know that the conversation is tainted

By no means do I think people should pretend the stigma isn't there. What I take issue with is the George Steinbrenner quote that's pasted every other discussion on charity, as if there was anything remotely noble about constantly reminding people that if anyone else so much as happens to hear about their actions, people would judge them for it.

It is hard to take your last question in good faith. Why do you still feel the need to paint me with that brush?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com