Can money be tainted by ‘evil’? poll discussion

Gareth_Lazelle

rpb wrote: »

I wonder what message it sends if we actively attempt to stop bad people doing good things...

I wonder what message we send if we allow evil acts to be "bought off" by making a big enough donation to charity?

brizey47

How many regular contributors would withold their payments if high profile charity was taking money from someone Like Gadaffi or Mugabe I seriously believe it would be counterproductive for the charity concerned as well as giving some despot credibility.

brizey47

rickbonar wrote: »

What about the British I think some would describe them as a nasty dictatorial regime with plenty of blood money... hey we're fighting for the wells in Libya today as we're running out cheap supplies it's hitting US and UK industries hard and making it more difficult to recover from the banking crisis and recession ... Mr Mugabe doesn't have the right kind of wells (yet) to justify protecting his people from a butchering tyrant. Hey but they will soon if the US decide to liberate them!

Whatever your political leaning in this country and I agree with some of the points made particularly about oil, we do not live in a dictatorship we are a democracy and have a free vote every 5 years at the most to appoint a government if enough people don't like what the current goverment are doing it will change. Libyans and many other African countries don't enjoy that level of freedom.

adrian_clark

rpb wrote: »

I wonder what message it sends if we actively attempt to stop bad people doing good things...

I would display arrogance and conceipt sending the message that we are somehow good people, instead of a people who accept that they have many of their own problems in the form of fractured families, !!!!!! addiction, child neglect, greed and debt. As a gracious people we could accept the money and turn it to good projects to love, serve and protect our neighbours in need.

lee636

Couldnt an additional option be added to the poll.....Take the money, kill him with it and use the rest to restore some normality back to where it came from?

RmG_2

hmm it’s nice to fantasise about controlling other peoples decisions.

How about the money saved when someone buys a pirate DVD?

or

The money (tax) saved by having a non working relative holding funds in a savings account.

or

Charities themselves that offer sweets / air fresheners for a donation, only to find the minority of the funds you donate go to the charity on display.

I am an architect, you may call me a butcher...

JohnJohn31

I haven't read all the posts, so excuse me if I'm repeating...

The charity should accept the donation without giving any commitment to the donee. This then provides the perfect platform to announce that the money has been received, what it will be used for, and to denounce the dictator's regime, but express hope that this signals a sea change in the dictator's policy.

A double whammy; cash for the charity and an opportunity to put 'positive' pressure on the dictator.

JohnJohn31

teddyco wrote: »

MSE Sunny,

"The truth is that all of mankind is 'evil' and has a wicked sinful nature from birth".


Sorry, off topic, but have to reply to this! Whikle we're on the topic of 'evil' regimes, what about a faith that preaches that we're all somehow wrong from birth? And manipulates people to feel that somehow they are themselves evil, with all the mental anguish (and potentially illness) that may follow?

Poster, i don't know you, but what utter tosh.

S_AND_I

Take the money, use a third to fund a militia to bring down the dictatorial regime, a third to print a compendium of every religious book going to ensure a better moral compass and a third to pay for a government inquiry into whether or not the money should be taken.

Favfly

The argument from effect might be: Take the money, as it's surely better that £1 billion is in the hands of a charity, feeding and providing healthcare for needy millions, than in the hands of a dictatorial regime with a hideous human rights record.
The argument from first principles might be: As the dictator's £1 billion is no doubt the result of theft and plunder, both from from his own and possibly invaded nations, it is not the dictator's to give as a gift. Any charity taking receipt of it would be receiving stolen goods.

But can those in immediate need of food and medicine be so high-minded as to turn away aid from any source? I would say take the money, but, being aware that it came from theft, an obligation is owed to the original owners of the money; perhaps to help them out from under the dictator's regime.