[gsz]

I don't really get your second paragraph. If you can afford to help strangers, then you can afford to help your friends. What point are you trying to make? I'm not sure.

And why do you help your family and friends? Why not focus on yourself only?

My point is, why did you draw the line exactly at friends and family? You don't owe anything to the rest of society, nor the rest of society owe anything to you? Why do you owe anything to your friends and family?

[Jach]

Why draw the line at family and friends? It's a natural place to draw the line. I think if you study psychology and the evolution of the human mind that's pretty obvious.

Additionally if you want to reason in a framework of debts, then you probably owe the most to your friends and family. You owe your entire existence directly to your parents -- it's hard to top that! Might as well stop there and just accept you have some unquantifiable amount of direct debt to the family who raised and protected you and the friends who spent time with you freely as opposed to doing something else. You can try to talk of indirect debts owed to and by "society" etc. but those quickly become spaghetti and in my opinion nonsensical. They're diffused and for some groups entirely non-existent, their lifespan is indefinite (you owe a part of your existence to all the warriors on whatever side of the conflicts your victorious (where victory means they could reproduce or their existing children were spared) ancestors took part in!), it's usually very unclear just how much is owed to whom, if it's even quantifiable, and how or if one can repay, and if you allow counterfactuals (like indirectly owing part of your existence to anyone who has had ill-thoughts toward your mother while she was pregnant or you during your life, but who didn't act on them) it becomes ever more ridiculous. And this is just as a reasoning framework -- can such a ridiculous construct actually motivate people to donate to some charity feeding starving kids in Africa and generate warm-fuzzy feelings of similar magnitude to gifting and helping out friends and family?

[gsz]

"Why draw the line at family and friends? It's a natural place to draw the line. I think if you study psychology and the evolution of the human mind that's pretty obvious."

I think if you study those things, you'll realize that it's not at all obvious. Clearly there's a difference between your blood relatives and the rest of humanity, but we collaborate and dependent on non-related strangers far more than any other species, and we have morals that support that kind of behavior. Why, do you think, we accuse people of nepotism, when they favor family in some scenarios (particularly in business and politics)?

I think the slogan "charity begins at home" is not appropriate to excuse one's ignorance of others' plight, and the fact that we have this debate is a good proof that human ethics are, in fact, more sophisticated.

[jamesjguthrie]

It's completely obvious to me. Because I have morals, I may feel sorry for homeless/sick/poor/other people/animals/countries, but it's illogical to me to give my money/care/efforts to any other than those that rely on me.

[jamesjguthrie]

The second part means that if I have enough money that I could potentially give it to a charity, I won't. I will buy my children something, or I will help my friends in need.

> Why not focus on yourself only? Because I will help those important to me, that I care about, and/or are my responsibility.

Homeless people and charities for every animal, nationality, and disease in this world, can not ALL be my responsibility. Another point that I think about a lot, I can not justify giving to just one charity and not to all charities. So I give to none.

I realise that my opinions may be unpopular but I have no problem with that.