For example you get some degenerative nerve disease that makes it so you can't walk. If you were donating to a charity for the disease before you got it, it would be ironic. But is it selfish to start donating afterwards to work for a cure simply because you have it too? Although you're also trying to get the cure for the other people who have it, you didn't give a damn about them before and viewed mail from them as "junk mail".
2006-07-20 21:13:33 · 16 answers · asked by Samuel B 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I wouldn't say your selfish just more informed than you previously were . You know the cause needs help and you can better sympathize with the people that need it .
Also after you have been diagnosed with one disease it is much more easier to see the type of pain people with other life dilapidating diseases must go through and you may then feel compelled to start donating to other charities as well .
2006-07-20 21:48:15 · answer #1 · answered by shellers 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
How can sponsoring charities ever be a selfish act? It's more selfish for a person to just sit around sulking and thinking how unfair his/her life is when there are others in the world who face even worse conditions and are not able to help themselves (as opposed to you being able to at least do something for them). So I don't think it really matters when you start sponsoring for charities or answering people's plights - the real question is: do you sponsor/do charity work at all? Besides, it often takes something or a significant event in your life to realize how lucky you are (well, in many other ways), so I suppose it's pretty normal for someone to view other people's plights (in view that a few of them may be some sort of scam) as junk mails. Nope, I don't think you're being selfish at all.
2006-07-21 04:32:50 · answer #2 · answered by decaf.latte 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is NOT selfish to donate to a charity after you have received the disease. Sometimes this sad wake up call is what was needed for a person to give to a worthy cause. Your funds are helping to prevent or cure- that's a good thing!
2006-07-21 04:16:44 · answer #3 · answered by billionaire2b 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not selfish, I think it would be pretty natural. Most people do not realize how serious a problem is until it touches their life; it is normal to start donating to charities that try to help with that problem when you are aware how bad it is.
2006-07-21 04:16:10 · answer #4 · answered by AlphaOne_ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it would be selfish at all.
But funny thing about it is that my wife has a disease like that and we went to donate to a charity for that disease and they wouldn't take our money. They said that the organization was for her benefit and not for her to give money to.
2006-07-21 04:22:24 · answer #5 · answered by double_nubbins 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It might sound selfish to some, but charity is charity.
In the words of Jack London, "A bone to the dog is not charity. Charity is the bone shared with the dog when you are as hungry as the dog."
2006-07-21 04:24:58 · answer #6 · answered by MintyMint 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it simply means that you became aware of the pain and struggles that others faced before you and those who'll come after you through your own experience. Whether your intentions were selfish or not, it is always better to give than to receive.
2006-07-21 04:18:58 · answer #7 · answered by buttercup 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's logical. If I had a disease, I would give my money to the people who can help find a cure for it.
2006-07-21 04:17:27 · answer #8 · answered by Aemilia753 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I can't claim to care a whole lot about anything I don't have some personal stake or tie to, and I wouldn't say this makes me a bad person. It's human nature. We're all self-interested and motivated.
2006-07-21 04:25:46 · answer #9 · answered by diasporas 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isn't that how some celebrities solicit public donations to certain charities after they have diagnosed?
2006-07-21 04:17:39 · answer #10 · answered by jd 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋