The Deadly Sin of Pride: Celebrity charity or narcissism?

I recently saw an episode of the Seven Deadly Sins documentary series.
It was about the the sin of Pride.
Firstly it stated that all sins go back to Pride - indeed the devil himself became the devil because of Pride.
The irony about that sin is that religious institutions became some of the most powerful and boastful institutions ever, and that pride fuelled colonialism and religious conquests. In fact, the "American dream" is built on making it big, and shameless pride and greed.

This is not where the irony ceases.
The documentary discusses the anabaptists and Amish. In their culture Pride is the biggest sin, and therefore they dress and even farm modestly. The problem is that humbleness or humility can itself turn into a form of Pride.
Now how does one solve this problem?
If having less makes you more in some cultures, then it becomes a competition to see who has less.
So even being very poor and humble can be a form of Pride.

More concerning are the "robber barons" who became the first US super-rich.
At a stage they became very unpopular, with their palatial homes.
This made them reinvent themselves as charitable men, and patrons of culture.
It was a successful reinterpretation on their part.
So how should charity by the super-rich be understood?
Is it true empathy, or is it the ultimate Pride?
What is the true message when capitalists with dodgy pasts attempt to distance themselves from their wealth and make their obscene lifestyles out as a common good?
Although charities do much good, such charity amongst the rich seems almost competative, and it is the ultimate form of Pride.

I would be more impressed with charity if it were done anonymously, and done in true charity, not just pocket change charity, but where it would make a real dent in someone's fortune...

Does a person need billions of dollars?
Ah, well, and giving away without letting anyone know who it was is true humility.

Those who practice charity and almsgiving in the spirit of "keeping with the Joneses" are as guilty as the Scribes and Pharisees, and that is to include false humility, that is to say, reducing one's status in the community to compete with others in "who is living on the least and making it." I don't think that is what is meant by being humble or living on less.

Do that which is hidden and which nobody sees. Kindness, charity, goodness done in the spirit of true love and humility, not caring who sees and notes it, will store up treasures in Heaven. Those who give and donate time, money, etc... just so others can see and exclaim "have received their reward" already.

Live in the spirit of what you need throughout the stages of one's life, not what you want~ a tenet that if most people actually lived by, would find themselves comfortable and happy, with little to no debt, and a good family structure. It is surprising what one can live without, and happily so. I already warned my brood about the changes at hand when the last one leaves the nest. Life will be much more Spartan.

Just my (humble ) opinion~

reply to post by thegoodearth

That is indeed admirably humble: roll: .
However, reading on the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, a lot of conspiracy issues are raised: vaccines, Aids, Monsanto and frankenfoods, and also connections to other charitable "philanthrocapitalists" like Rockefeller, Clinton and Carnegie. en.wikipedia.org...
Is it really charity, or just channeling cash into shadow industries and research?
I suppose a lot of people must wonder...

reply to post by halfoldman


Yes, definately, and I didn't make it clear in my post...
What I would like to see if these tycoons just give money.
Quiet.
No press releases.
No fanfare.
No foundations.
Just give.
A lot.
Enough to almost wince.
To places that truly need.
Not to pharma, not to front companies for the societies that 0.02 of every dollar actually get used for good, and the rest go to the corporate offices and big dinners...
That would be humble of them.
I think most people like that donate for the tax write off, and
to see their names on buildings and in the news.
Last I knew, Monsanto was not on the list of "nice". Don't think they need more funds.

reply to post by thegoodearth

Good points.
Indeed, will we see charity without some name or foundation attached?
Doesn't that sound like strings attached?

Celebrities and the super rich do not give just to satisfy their sense of pride. They also do it to rape the spiritual laws of giving, you give to get. For the most part they are taught from a young age to give and they will receive back and then some. But yes it would be nice to see people give without their name being placed on something, it isn't meant to be a public affair, but this does not mean you should not talk about the organizations you give to and how they conduct their business either.

By giving to organizations that have corrupted their mission you are in effect aiding in that corruption. I wouldn't discuss how much one is giving as that is in poor taste and looking for an acknowledgment from your peers, it is enough to just say you support this or that.

reply to post by halfoldman


As with anything it should be judged *if at all* on an individual basis. On the merits and drawbacks of the individual of which you are speaking. Rubberstamping it is not smart imho.

I don't put a lot of thought towards, "Am I being proud, am I being humble?" I find it better to not think about it and more or less try to see the good side of others, and operate under an assumption of human equality. It is true if your goal is to be humble and you become humble, you will be proud of your humility lol. It's a game that just takes you in circles and it's a waste of time.

I think it's better to do charity than not. I'm not going to fault anyone for trying. Yes there are some like Bill Gates who's charity works always come back to help him and his business, or push some agenda - it's a mixture of good and bad. Plus if people see a celebrity on TV doing charity, it may make them want to start doing charity or recycle or something, so it's not necessarily bad.

In my experience with local charity, I never ran into anyone who was fiercely prideful. Usually it builds their compassion. Now there are those who work at charities who just leech and don't do anything, and they advertise their usefulness because they are insecure about it, or something.

I guess humility as an action has it's place - when you are dealing with someone mature enough to handle it, it can be fine. Someone who isn't going to feel like nobility because you are going out of your way for them, or on the other hand someone who (wont) feel attacked because they thought their superiority was implicit and undisputed and there was no need for you to express meekness in the first place.

reply to post by halfoldman


Mr.Ego Himself .



But i think he is aware of his shortcomings ......

Strong Christian beliefs + Irish + Mega-wealthy = Guilt

-----------

He could be throwing parties , served trays of coc aine by Umpa Lumpa`s but instead he feeds his narcissistic tendencies by helping others in a very visual way.
Mehhhh , .... let him have his attention - he`s earned it.

reply to post by halfoldman


The "Seven Deadly Sins", or "Capital Vices", or "Capital Sins", is an early Christian doctrine, and certainly a Catholic doctrine that is less rooted in Biblical teachings and more rooted in church dogma. There is the Book of Proverbs, that lists certain behaviors as being unseemly or frowned upon by the Lord, and depending upon the translations one reads, pride is the only commonality between Proverbs and The Seven Deadly Sins. Some translations of the Bible list pride in Proverbs, others list haughtiness instead of pride. There is a great difference between pride and haughtiness.

Pride defined:

1. A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect.
2. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association: parental pride.
3. Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness.
4. a. A cause or source of pleasure or satisfaction; the best of a group or class: These soldiers were their country's pride. b. The most successful or thriving condition; prime: the pride of youth.
5. An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit.

Of the five definitions offered, only two correlate with haughty:

Scornfully and condescendingly proud.

Having a sense of one's own proper dignity or value, (self-respect), need not be haughty by nature. Looking down one's nose at others is haughty, but having pride in ones own accomplishments is not. It is hubris that is deadly, not pride. Pride is dubiously demonized while humility is held up as a virtue one should endeavor towards. However, pride is difficult to obtain and can only be felt through genuine accomplishment, where haughtiness or hubris rarely, if ever, stems from a sense of genuine accomplishment. Humility, on the other hand, need not be sought, and will surely find every person at some point in that persons life, if not regularly. Humility need not be earned, it merely presents itself to humanity in many forms.

Charity, when defined as being a benevolent or generosity towards others, or humanity, is not something that necessarily requires anonymity. There is nothing inherently wrong with being open about one's benevolence or generosity, and there is certainly nothing wrong with taking pride in being benevolent or generous. Such a characteristic is worthy of pride as it is an accomplishment to be benevolent or generous. If one were to take a haughty view of others based upon their own perceptions of their benevolence, their presumed benevolence instantly becomes suspect.

In the end, I lament that pride is so vilified in people, and endeavor to encourage people to earn that most noble experience of pride as much as possible, as pride can only be earned and does not come easy.

An interesting book that deals with the topic of super-rich displays of charity is: The Natural History of the Rich: A field guide (2002) by Richard Conniff.
I recall Connif proposing that alpha dominance in apes and other spiecies mirrors that in humans, and that royalty and the rich display typical observable and symbolic dominant behaviour.
Charity as dominance exists in other spieces (which has raised all kinds of question whether true altruism exists in nature). The dominant position is always threatened by other alpha types, so dominance is not only the stick, but also building allegiances with a less powerful collective. Conniff mentions one bird that literally shoves food into the mouth of a less dominant member.
Some other interesting traits of the rich may include making their fortressed estates look like Savannah landscapes. They have symbols of prime predators in their properties - stuffed or painted tigers, bears and lions are typical. This is veiled intimidation. The males indulge in inappropriate public urinantion - marking dominance and territiory.
Although the males have access to flocks of female admirers, old money is less flashy and has many cousin marriages (keep the loot in the family). Perhaps the most astounding characteristic is the common assertion that money means nothing to them.
An interesting interview with Conniff: www.identitytheory.com...

Personally someone who has to splash it around that they are such a giving charitable person (celebrity or next door neighbor guy doesnt matter) is not being charitable for altruistic reaosns, they are doing it for selfish reasons.

Selfish reaosns incluse the hey look how good I am, or the feeling they get from giving. All come down to selfishness.

Anyway who cares what the personal reaosn is, as long as the needy are being helped.

I find it really hypocritical when someone brags about their charity work but in the same breath claims they are not expecting anything in return. Just the act of bragging about it negates that statement, and charity for the feeling it gives it you is still selfish charity.

reply to post by hotbakedtater

Generally so far it appears like there is private and spiritual charity (between me, myself and God).
Then there is public charity, which is somewhat suspect.
Yet, many people would think of any charity as something positive (no matter how abstract), and they don't really differentiate.

reply to post by halfoldman


I do not differentiate the end result of charity, regardless of motive of the giver, the end result is someone in need was helped.

What gets me is the ones who have to crow about it, because inevitably they are crowing how they expect nothing in return but by making the act known, you ARE expecting a payoff, it strokes your ego.

Why lie about the ultimate reaosn for the public charity? Just admit it makes you feel good and you expect to gain that ego stroke that is the pay off. Because bragging about it results in an ego pay off, whereas anonymous charity results in only the receiver's life being enriched.

I hope I am making some sense here, I guess even anonymous giving can stroke the ego so maybe I not making sense, lol.

reply to post by hotbakedtater

Thanks for that, you make perfect sense even while navigating this difficult paradox.

I'm just also now thinking how charity can be cultural imperialism (especially thinking of the bird in Conniff above which shoves food into the mouths of others - whether needed or not). I know people who give to Bible charities to convert people in Muslim countries or India. Although well meaning, that is also arrogance, I think. Yet they think this the most important charity of all.

Especially Africans have been virtually enslaved by forms of charity under the guise of "developmental" change.
I think Africans were quite fine before most of this.
It does make one think.