The “why” is an efficient way of measuring the amount of all the positive effects we can do through a transparent organization that we trust, or by meeting real people and not slogans, or by our daily actions. Better if it is organized and aimed for causes we agree to collaborate not for the theme, but for the common benefits.
The “how” is by proofs and facts that we certainly rely on as confirmed information, the problem, and it is related to altruism, it is that information mostly takes some time and the reaction will arrive too late.
Certain aspects of an unfortunate situation can be resolve by performance according to the sense of coherence, it has been developed by experience and knowledge. As individuals, we should not overthink how to do, rather in what. Of course, more evidence is needed, but our criteria must not be delayed.
And of course, every individual has a list of priorities that should be done. The problem dwells when society begins to push in favor of new aspects over unresolved tasks. The “what” will be always put on hold while new priorities arise and the old ones are limping to be over. Then the circle starts again.
Felipe
Numbers and perspectives around statistics could make a person doubt if any help is going to make a change. A cold heart would see the beneficial around a factible cause and not for a lost one.
Altruism sometimes can be compered with a sport-team, if your cause is known and crucial, it could get far away from baseline to make a real change by the interest and funding from people around the world, nevertheless, other causes could only be part of an idiosyncrasy from least fortunate people or situations.
This raises the questions, how can we make altruism from any cause a real enterprise? Are the numbers more important than the good heart?
Besides any political party, helping by long lasting actions such as teaching, promoting health, feeding, democracy, etc. those are what we should first finance with troops of multidisciplinary professionals.
Simple words that explain how society could benefit from a new perspective to improve life around us, not only humanitarian but also nature. The balance of money and power is not corruptible and delicate, from my perspective many can be done, if we invest money in charitable goals. And not becoming an activist for the public eye.
During this pandemic of COVID-19, I saw people helping others who need more and even adopting dogs and cats as pets without shelter. The ethics in these actions are inherent. That is what a positive sign has been disclosed from us. And I consider the paradox of hedonism necessarily to rediscover what as humans need to do for ourselves and the planet.
Maybe one day we will save the last child drowning from pollution.
Cheerfully going down by the path of sadness and misery so others will live what I should not.
It seems that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But what kind of hell would I find? if I am a good person and giving my time and efforts to others, that does not make me a good person, the over necessity as a giver is not my decision, to help others must be a part of everyone, when the opportunity is given, when I have the voluntary will to proceed. It is easier to help others when you can help yourself. Would you rather become successful and collaborate or just be an impulsive man to seek to do good things without a plan.
From my perspective, a sacrifice has meaning when a person detracts more than the rational support and gives a “part” that would not come back, like time as a volunteer for immigrants or donate a kidney to a patient in urgency.
I agree 100% with avoiding the breakdown, it is not selfish to love oneself and try to be in a good place. The “belief” of a modern martyr is distorted and lately strained by “obligations from doubled standard morality”