All she had to say back was "contributing something is better than not contributing anything". Like if everyone in the world donated 0.1% that would be the same as many many people donating 100%. It really does add up.
Sure, but he's saying that it's not about morality unless you give everything you don't need away, you just feel less guilty. So, if you have $1000, but you only spend $500, the moral thing to do is give it to someone who needs it, but every dollar you keep is a dollar that ISN'T going to improve the world or anything, it's just going to help you. So, you could justify it and say "Well, I gave $100, that's better than you giving nothing," but... why didn't you give more if you had $500 to spare? A person could keep using that argument even if you gave away $495, as long as you keep $5 for yourself. If it isn't about feeling less guilty and entirely about morality, what's the logic for not giving it all away? The reason why he says charity is BS is because everyone has a reason not to if pressed, like "Well, I might need it in the future," or Alice's "I wanted to buy more shoes."
@@ashblossomandjoyoussprung.9917 $5 helps, and if you also gave $5 then that's $10 total. Virtually all money charities receive is many small donations, so people with my mindset, of not doing much, are keep charities running. I don't represent a single person, I represent a demographic. If I do something, I know everyone else in my demographic would do the same. Sure, I could do more. But I'm happy that what I'm doing isn't negligible. Does it make me feel better? Yeah. Does that mean I have to stop doing it? Wtf no.
Yeah this is a line of thought some people take very seriously. They think it's better to support a sustainable social norm of as many people as possible giving about 10% or less of their income, rather than a few people giving as much as possible. The thinking goes that if you follow Dilbert's logic here, you end up with 0.1% of people giving an unsustainably large amount, and scaring/discouraging the other 99.9% until they barely donate anything at all. If generous people all burn themselves out, giving so much that they aren't able to start families or maintain friendships, and alienate regular people with their extreme demands, then the mainstream culture is going to become less generous over time. Then the other line of thought is that all this is just an excuse to keep money to yourself and it's really better to give as much to charity as you reasonably can. There's another group who thinks charity in general is counterproductive and only delays real systemic solutions to problems. Personally, I don't have to be in any of these groups since I have no job, therefore no income. In fact, maybe people should be giving me money.
Alice so rarely got what she had coming to her in this show, so I relish the few times she had to swallow her pride and admit anyone other then her was capable of being right about something (which might as well have been like eating poisioned daggers for her) I think one of the reasons this show flopped was because the shows themes leaned to heard twords cynicism and as a result assholes won way to often and the audience doesn't feel good (but thats my tin foil hat theory)
I have to admit, I first discovered Dilbert sometime in early-mid 2019, and ever since then, I have been intrigued and amazed by it. I want to root for Dilbert. Dilbert is not always right, but I respect how he does care and try to be a decent person and sensible. Like I said, Dilbert isn't always right, but he is a great guy. For a cartoon character.
Scott Adams credits the network it was on to killing the show (UPN). It was a struggling network that had already lost 40% of it's viewers, they were hoping the Dilbert show would save them, and it would have, but the network decided to air the show directly after it's worst performing show at the time (Shasta Mcnasty) and on the worst day too, Monday. If you ask Scott Adams now what killed the show, he credits the african american race.
You haven’t seen the rest of the episode she ruin herself following what filbert say until he feel super guilty end up destitute just to prove silvery wrong
It's not immoral to save some money for yourself because you may need it at some point in the future, such as for a financial emergency, or to have something to pass onto your family. From a practical standpoint, you're doing society harm if you end up needing to accept charitable donations from others yourself because you donated all of your money away in the first place. I agree with Dilbert's point about people spending money on things they don't need though; like people who buy a new phone every 1-2 years when their current one works fine. You could also argue that donating money to charity is not about your personal morality, it's about the benefit it provides to the people who receive it. If I give a homeless man a cup of soup, all he cares is that he now has a warm meal, he doesn't care what my personal motivations were for giving it to him.
DWSimmy Can I just add on by saying that if the only reason you donate to charities in the first place is to either make yourself feel less guilty about not doing everything you can to help poor people, or just to make yourself feel morally superior to those who donate less than you; then you really shouldn't be donating in the first place, seeing that you've turned something that's supposed to help people into a meaningless contest or ego boost.
When you buy a new phone the old phone is resold in the third world for a few dollars and poor people get to have smartphones. That might not sound like charity, but at least it's something. People like to say the capitalist system is parasitic but in reality it is very efficient. All our useless electronics get shipped to China and mined for precious metals. Thousands of Chinese have pulled themselves up from poverty just stripping gold from electronic contacts. The shoes Alice bought are made by poor people in Vietnam, and iPhones are built in Shenzhen. There's very little you can do that doesn't help someone. Even buying fast food puts beans on fast food workers' tables. The most useless thing you can do is give money to panhandlers.
He's right, there really is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and that's fine, you're entitled to the money you make. He's not saying you should give everything away, he's saying you shouldn't boast about being generous and charitable if you don't.
Same thing with people publicly displaying their religious persuasions. They sought the reward of people having a high opinion of them, so they can expect no reward in Heaven.
The problem is there's no gurentee your donations go where you want them to. So many charities will take your tiny donation and line their pockets with a percentage of it while doing the bare minimum to "help" in the way they're promised. Even a charity that claims to be non-profit you would have to trust to be telling the truth. You have no way to proove it for yourself. ANd as long as people can be bought with the promise of money to let others do what they want there's always going to be some level of trust that's exploited. What we need to do is stomp out corruption. Teach morality, give people more reason to do the right thing and less reason to do the wrong things. When the world is free of corruption fixing everything from the climate to living conditions for the poor will happen quickly and without issue.
@@sofaking1611 it literally can’t work that way. You’re just giving the money to a charity rather than the government, but you can’t reduce your taxes by more than the amount you donate.
dilbert is really great at these dumbass strawman arguments where for some reason they can’t come up with a very basic “giving is better than keeping” dilbert is the one making it a morality contest, she just wants everybody to give what they can. dilbert is clearly insecure about his moral standing or else he wouldn’t have taken this as a moral challenge. you meet people like this in real life, too. if you complain about some social issue they believe you’re trying to be “more moral” than them. these people tend to have zero beliefs of their own besides rote contrarianism.
I'm with Alice on this one. I give to charities when it's convenient, but I also waste a lot of money on things I don't really need. Only my argument is that I actually worked to earn every dollar I have. It is fully up to me how each dollar is therefore spent. Anyone working a regular job like in a cubicle farm disserves to choose how they use their money. But Dilbert is also right about it not making you morally superior but just feel less guilty. I will donate to whatever convenient cause comes along to balance that guilt scale.
i am strongly in favor of doing good things with the full knowledge it doesn't make you a good person. In real life, even the most selfless people will take selfish actions. so I may as well accept that there is a bit of vainglory in every act of good, and cross my fingers there's a net positive for everyone
Unless you're the one person in the world whose life is worse than anyone elses you will always have a reason to feel guilty (doesn't Scott even mention this in one of his books? I need to reread).
@@TacosYBurritos8P well, that holds true for countries like Africa. But the basic point I was making was that it will be easier and cheaper to teach them new skills then to simply give them stuff.
Actually altruism isn't a good thing at all. It is the source of the greatest evils in the world. If everyone would just mind their own business and not try to "help" others, we would be in a much better place
@gaelanwhite8842 it is simple actually, the greatest evil are usually committed by people who think they know better then others what is good for them. help without being asked help without consent help for its own sake without connection to the people they are trying to help
All she had to say back was "contributing something is better than not contributing anything". Like if everyone in the world donated 0.1% that would be the same as many many people donating 100%. It really does add up.
Sure, but he's saying that it's not about morality unless you give everything you don't need away, you just feel less guilty.
So, if you have $1000, but you only spend $500, the moral thing to do is give it to someone who needs it, but every dollar you keep is a dollar that ISN'T going to improve the world or anything, it's just going to help you.
So, you could justify it and say "Well, I gave $100, that's better than you giving nothing," but... why didn't you give more if you had $500 to spare? A person could keep using that argument even if you gave away $495, as long as you keep $5 for yourself.
If it isn't about feeling less guilty and entirely about morality, what's the logic for not giving it all away? The reason why he says charity is BS is because everyone has a reason not to if pressed, like "Well, I might need it in the future," or Alice's "I wanted to buy more shoes."
@@ashblossomandjoyoussprung.9917 $5 helps, and if you also gave $5 then that's $10 total. Virtually all money charities receive is many small donations, so people with my mindset, of not doing much, are keep charities running. I don't represent a single person, I represent a demographic. If I do something, I know everyone else in my demographic would do the same.
Sure, I could do more. But I'm happy that what I'm doing isn't negligible. Does it make me feel better? Yeah. Does that mean I have to stop doing it? Wtf no.
Yeah this is a line of thought some people take very seriously. They think it's better to support a sustainable social norm of as many people as possible giving about 10% or less of their income, rather than a few people giving as much as possible. The thinking goes that if you follow Dilbert's logic here, you end up with 0.1% of people giving an unsustainably large amount, and scaring/discouraging the other 99.9% until they barely donate anything at all. If generous people all burn themselves out, giving so much that they aren't able to start families or maintain friendships, and alienate regular people with their extreme demands, then the mainstream culture is going to become less generous over time. Then the other line of thought is that all this is just an excuse to keep money to yourself and it's really better to give as much to charity as you reasonably can. There's another group who thinks charity in general is counterproductive and only delays real systemic solutions to problems. Personally, I don't have to be in any of these groups since I have no job, therefore no income. In fact, maybe people should be giving me money.
Alice so rarely got what she had coming to her in this show, so I relish the few times she had to swallow her pride and admit anyone other then her was capable of being right about something (which might as well have been like eating poisioned daggers for her) I think one of the reasons this show flopped was because the shows themes leaned to heard twords cynicism and as a result assholes won way to often and the audience doesn't feel good (but thats my tin foil hat theory)
That’s exactly how I fell about animation from the 2000s.
I have to admit, I first discovered Dilbert sometime in early-mid 2019, and ever since then, I have been intrigued and amazed by it. I want to root for Dilbert. Dilbert is not always right, but I respect how he does care and try to be a decent person and sensible. Like I said, Dilbert isn't always right, but he is a great guy. For a cartoon character.
Scott Adams credits the network it was on to killing the show (UPN). It was a struggling network that had already lost 40% of it's viewers, they were hoping the Dilbert show would save them, and it would have, but the network decided to air the show directly after it's worst performing show at the time (Shasta Mcnasty) and on the worst day too, Monday. If you ask Scott Adams now what killed the show, he credits the african american race.
You haven’t seen the rest of the episode she ruin herself following what filbert say until he feel super guilty end up destitute just to prove silvery wrong
This feels like a Reddit debate.
2023 Dilbert: Sure! as long as it doesnt go to any ⬛ people
2023-24 Dilbert is just an insane person
Dilbert is just being honest.
Honest about being insane in 2024? @@theplasmatron3306
Government gives them enough. Which...oh right, comes from our taxes.
@@giftedmonster5293 how does it give black peolpe "money from taxes"?
What a hero!
It's not immoral to save some money for yourself because you may need it at some point in the future, such as for a financial emergency, or to have something to pass onto your family. From a practical standpoint, you're doing society harm if you end up needing to accept charitable donations from others yourself because you donated all of your money away in the first place. I agree with Dilbert's point about people spending money on things they don't need though; like people who buy a new phone every 1-2 years when their current one works fine.
You could also argue that donating money to charity is not about your personal morality, it's about the benefit it provides to the people who receive it. If I give a homeless man a cup of soup, all he cares is that he now has a warm meal, he doesn't care what my personal motivations were for giving it to him.
i see now
DWSimmy Can I just add on by saying that if the only reason you donate to charities in the first place is to either make yourself feel less guilty about not doing everything you can to help poor people, or just to make yourself feel morally superior to those who donate less than you; then you really shouldn't be donating in the first place, seeing that you've turned something that's supposed to help people into a meaningless contest or ego boost.
Conner Hancock kinda like the ice bucket challenge
That's kind of the point of charities now though. Especially since most of the big name charities spend 90% of their money on administrative costs.
When you buy a new phone the old phone is resold in the third world for a few dollars and poor people get to have smartphones. That might not sound like charity, but at least it's something. People like to say the capitalist system is parasitic but in reality it is very efficient. All our useless electronics get shipped to China and mined for precious metals. Thousands of Chinese have pulled themselves up from poverty just stripping gold from electronic contacts. The shoes Alice bought are made by poor people in Vietnam, and iPhones are built in Shenzhen. There's very little you can do that doesn't help someone. Even buying fast food puts beans on fast food workers' tables. The most useless thing you can do is give money to panhandlers.
How to deconstruct Prosperity Gospel.
Yeah right you jackass - "Unless you can give everything don't give anything at all." Idiocy or selfishness, hard to know which is the driving force.
0:59 Me when I'm arguing with my dad!
He's right, there really is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and that's fine, you're entitled to the money you make.
He's not saying you should give everything away, he's saying you shouldn't boast about being generous and charitable if you don't.
Paying alms does make you feel better, but you are supposed to keep it secret.
Same thing with people publicly displaying their religious persuasions. They sought the reward of people having a high opinion of them, so they can expect no reward in Heaven.
I just donate a few bucks a year. Not really much, but enough to give thanks.
Could you spare some coin for the Disabled Veterans of Retail Security.
Only if you tell me why Wally is dressed as a monkey.
Hi, I'm collecting for Farmers Who Are Afraid Of Cows.
The problem is there's no gurentee your donations go where you want them to. So many charities will take your tiny donation and line their pockets with a percentage of it while doing the bare minimum to "help" in the way they're promised. Even a charity that claims to be non-profit you would have to trust to be telling the truth. You have no way to proove it for yourself. ANd as long as people can be bought with the promise of money to let others do what they want there's always going to be some level of trust that's exploited.
What we need to do is stomp out corruption. Teach morality, give people more reason to do the right thing and less reason to do the wrong things. When the world is free of corruption fixing everything from the climate to living conditions for the poor will happen quickly and without issue.
This is why I wont donate till I'm rich
Donations that are tax deductible will help you get rich faster
@@sofaking1611 it literally can’t work that way. You’re just giving the money to a charity rather than the government, but you can’t reduce your taxes by more than the amount you donate.
If you're not stealing from others, you're stealing from your family
dilbert is really great at these dumbass strawman arguments where for some reason they can’t come up with a very basic “giving is better than keeping”
dilbert is the one making it a morality contest, she just wants everybody to give what they can. dilbert is clearly insecure about his moral standing or else he wouldn’t have taken this as a moral challenge. you meet people like this in real life, too. if you complain about some social issue they believe you’re trying to be “more moral” than them. these people tend to have zero beliefs of their own besides rote contrarianism.
If Dilbert were to actually tell us anything now, it would probably be pretty scary, comedy wise.
You say that as if he has changed in the last 20 years.
Hes had basically the same beliefs and morals. Difference is, the overton window shifted.
Dilbert's a regular Jesus Christ
Every time I see a person asking for money, I tell them i don’t have any.
I'm with Alice on this one. I give to charities when it's convenient, but I also waste a lot of money on things I don't really need. Only my argument is that I actually worked to earn every dollar I have. It is fully up to me how each dollar is therefore spent. Anyone working a regular job like in a cubicle farm disserves to choose how they use their money. But Dilbert is also right about it not making you morally superior but just feel less guilty. I will donate to whatever convenient cause comes along to balance that guilt scale.
i am strongly in favor of doing good things with the full knowledge it doesn't make you a good person. In real life, even the most selfless people will take selfish actions. so I may as well accept that there is a bit of vainglory in every act of good, and cross my fingers there's a net positive for everyone
Help others who you meet who need help, and donate to open source software projects that you like!
Making money is making money.
So doing some good when you could do more is morally identical to doing no good for anyone? That’s fucking dumb, bro.
I donate 100% of my income to people in need. Me, specifically. I'm the person in need
In the comic strip, did Dilbert and Wally have butts where their bellies should be?
I initially thought Dilbert had an extra large 🐫 toe.
Unless you're the one person in the world whose life is worse than anyone elses you will always have a reason to feel guilty (doesn't Scott even mention this in one of his books? I need to reread).
Wow the business world sure is funny….
Well sometimes it’s funny
Counter: And what, pray tell, is wrong with a system of altruism based on varying levels of assuaged guilt?
It seems to work for most religions.
:P
not a single reply
Is it weird that I saw a Sonic charity ad before seeing this?
Not at all. I think your profile picture is the reason why you saw that ad. Targeted marketing and all.
What the FUCK is a Sonic
Charity Ad?
Flo A charity ad that plays really fast.
Sonic as in the restaurant?
This is sounding kinda Randian on Dilbert’s part. Only jerks follow Ayn Rand…
If you really want t help the poor, you should teach them modern ways of doing things, like construction of machines.
This just assumes they are poor because they don't know modern things.
@@TacosYBurritos8P well, that holds true for countries like Africa.
But the basic point I was making was that it will be easier and cheaper to teach them new skills then to simply give them stuff.
You think you're the first person to come up with the idea of teaching the Africans?
@@vaxrvaxr No.
@@huntergman8338 ...yeah I'm sure imperialism had nothing to do with Africa being poor.
Actually altruism isn't a good thing at all. It is the source of the greatest evils in the world.
If everyone would just mind their own business and not try to "help" others, we would be in a much better place
Found the randroid.
ah so you are just evil scum then.
That isn't even close to being true.
@gaelanwhite8842 it is simple actually, the greatest evil are usually committed by people who think they know better then others what is good for them.
help without being asked
help without consent
help for its own sake without connection to the people they are trying to help
@@rphb5870So basically, if someone ASKS for help, it's better not to help? LOL Extremely flawed logic, only useful to the greedy.
This is just the human definition of morale true morality comes from the bible
The bible supports slavery and child murder, the bible is not moral and not a good foundation for a moral outlook
Agreed.