Why Volunteering Is Wrong

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Do You Oppose Volunteering?

  • Yes
  • Yes, I agree with reason #1
  • Yes, I agree with reason #2
  • Yes, I agree with reason #3
  • Yes, I agree for my own reason
  • No
  • No, I disagree with reason #1
  • No, I disagree with reason #2
  • No, I disagree with reason #3
  • No, I disagree for my own reason
0 voters

Following are three reasons why volunteering is wrong and should be banned:

One, it supports rejects taking care of rejects. That is those who volunteer are those who have been rejected by society and are looking for a way to be appealing in their communities. Likewise, those who need volunteer services are rejects who are desperate for help. Volunteering allows social rejectors to get away with rejection.

Two, it allows for hypercompetitive vanity. Again, those who volunteer are looking for a way to be appealing in their communities. This encourages a rat race where people sacrifice their dignity, time, energy, and attention in exchange for nothing just to integrate and assimilate. In turn, everyone becomes expected to sacrifice themselves.

Three, it encourages “nice guy” syndrome. Those who sacrifice themselves are doing so with the hope and expectation that they’ll get something in exchange in the future despite not asking others in advance. Some of them will rationalize that this is altruism, but altruism is a lie we tell ourselves when we’re trying to make penance for being guilt tripped.

To be clear, I’m not denying that volunteering is effective. What I’m saying is that quantitative effectiveness is qualitatively unjustified. It encourages society to depreciate its own self-respect and self-esteem just to come away with a sense of achievement without thinking about what it’s working for.

What say you?

2

The fact is they aren’t “rejects” if they succeed in not being “rejected”. Your logic seems to be the equivalent of saying that plastic surgery should be outlawed, because it may make people who have to deal with being called “disfigured” by others do better in society, or your logic is the equivalent of any medical care whatsoever, because unhealthy people are often “rejected” (I know this first hand) and medical care lets them “get away with rejection”.

This would be a semi-respectable argument for shunning volunteer work, if anything you said in it was true, but I have doubts.

I agree that encouraging “nice guy” syndrome is to avoided ,it’s terrrible for the “nice guy” to be a “nice guy” and for reasons I’ve spoken of elsewhere it’s questionable for society as a whole to have such “nice guys” despite their efforts. But, this is far from an argument to ban volunteering.

This is what I’ve been saying about you, you balance incredible insight into the world and human behavior with very arguable statements. Is it not possible to have the best of both worlds??

For example if you had simply made a thread called; “Quit Giving People Guilt Trips.” And then simply said the following in you OP, I would have been very happy to hear such statements, being that is what I’ve been saying all along on ilp about altruism.

3

Its been my experience that folks volunteer because they are a part of it. You clean up your room because its yours, you help because you are part of that society. Thank gods for that otherwise after disaster things would remain destroyed.

4

That isn’t entirely what I’m saying. Social rejects are rejected by their origins from being (necessarily) included where they come from. In contrast, the disfigured are called by outsiders from being (possibly) included elsewhere. For example, in a society that includes volunteering, you could be rejected and I could be labeled disfigured. In turn, I would be expected to volunteer in order to possibly be included in your community while you are necessarily helped by me. You shouldn’t be rejected in the first place, nor should I be given false hope to join your community.

Plastic surgery isn’t necessary in itself. It’s a possible fashion statement. Health care is necessary, but health care is only a responsibility in the case of giving birth to someone with a disabling condition. On the other hand, when it goes beyond what someone’s born with, yes, volunteered health care allows for negligence in society. For example, a Church that takes care of the disabled for free can be exploited by those willing to disable others. They can say, “It’s OK. You can go to the Church.”

I don’t see how it would work that way. If one person shuns volunteer work, another can still do it, so hypercompetitive vanity sticks around.

Volunteerism needs a centralized ban so nobody vainly hypercompetes for sure in advance of communication.

If we agree that “nice guy” syndrome should be avoided, then what’s the problem?

X is wrong. (Murder is wrong.)
Y causes X. (Shooting someone causes murder.)
Therefore, Y should be banned. (Therefore, shooting someone should be banned.)

Guilt trips aren’t the entire problem. Rejection and hypercompetitive vanity are also problems.

5

I’m not talking about voluntaryism. I’m talking about volunteering.

6

Yet you ask people to volunteer their opinion. :laughing-rollingyellow: That’s just ‘wrong’.

7

There’s a mutual self-interest in conversation. We’re coming to terms over ideas.

8

It seems like one assumption here is that societies criteria for rejection are correct. Is this true in all societies? Are societies infallible, even good ones, when they reject? Isn’t volunteerism, and the organizations that use volunteers, part of society?

Are they getting nothing? Must it be sacrifice?

So the volunteers can actually enjoy what they are doing? (as opposed to some secondary gain like guilt relief, which seems to be the only real motivation in your analysis)

To be clear from my side: I would guess that in many cases you are correct, and I have a great distaste for the use of guilt (in other names) as the foundation of organizations, behavior and one’s personality, but it seems rather over generalized, here.

9

If rejection was infallible, then, social rejection would be OK since it would (necessarily) be justified. At that, many are rejected out of others’ deliberate corrupt self-interests.

If they’re compensated, it’s not volunteering. It’s labor for wages. If you’re talking about social networking, that’s an ordinary part of participation.

I’m assuming this is a typo and you meant to say “can’t”.

No. Volunteers can’t. When they take pride in volunteering, it’s because they don’t see what they’re missing out on. For example, some people enjoy doing hard work because it’s exercise and they have a sense of accomplishment. They’re too arrogant to see how they’re being enslaved to do another’s labor.

I agree that there are alternatives to guilt. Flattering someone’s ego into hubris is another example.

10

Outstanding.

11

Oh you so have to point out the significant difference and especially the ism part.

12

I say that we are in complete agreement and that I adore you.

13

One can be compensated in ways other than money, no?

Your position here seems awfully presumptuous. How do you know they don’t realize what they are missing out on? How do you know they don’t enjoy what they’re doing in spite of what they are sacrificing?

I disagree. I don’t think people generally volunteer for an empty sense of accomplishment. There is almost always a goal involved. What volunteers are working for is not only clear, but perfectly justifiable on a societal level. We help the society by helping those who constitute it. And we gain self respect and esteem through cooperation and support.

14

Spite isn’t enjoyable. It’s stubborn. Literally, to spite something requires closing one’s mind off such that one can’t be surprised and enjoy stimulus.

Many people are good fakers though. They know what to anticipate in order to look like they’re having fun.

Then, you have jerks who enjoy themselves at the expense of others’ frustration. Again, that falls into what I said about hypercompetitive vanity.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Prove it.

15

Prove it.

16

One, if everyone was accepted, volunteering wouldn’t happen. The definition of acceptance is literally being accepted. You would neither have people in need of support, nor people desperate to prove themselves in providing support.

Two, when people compete for acceptance, those who set the bar highest in terms of cost-benefit ratio are the first to be accepted. Anyone who doesn’t endure high costs for low benefit is labeled as lazy.

Three, people’s minds are not infinite, and they gravitate towards habits. When people habitually get involved with volunteering, they lose their ability to offer their skills with confidence. Instead, they literally sell themselves out for nothing which establishes a habit of not negotiating before performance.

Your turn.

17

A person can be accepted yet still down on his luck or economically destitute.

These two statements seem contradictory.

This is just clearly false. Volunteering does not compromise a person’s ability to offer or utilize his skills. You have absolutely no basis for the argument that it does.

Now lets see…

You focused on a single word and took it out of context. This is not only bad argumentation, but cheap and deliberate. The phrase “in spite of” can mean “even while recognizing [something bad]”.

One of the goals is helping people, for example. I don’t take this to be remotely controversial.

You need to know why helping people is justifiable? I refuse to dignify that.

[/quote]
I don’t know what you want here. My statements are pretty straight forward.

18

How so? If someone’s accepted, then someone will be employed. Literally, someone will be accepted into an economically sustainable organization.

Contradictory? What do you think competition is? Those who give the most and take the least win. That’s what high cost-benefit ratio is: higher costs, and lower benefits. Remember, those who volunteer are giving it all and taking nothing, so they encourage hypercompetition.

(If I didn’t know any better, I would think you were a Republican who opposed labor unions as if workers should put their nose to the grindstone.)

We’re talking about social skills here, not technical skills. Volunteering takes no social skills. You simply sign up.

If anything, it degrades social skills because people divert attention from negotiation to performance. They don’t even think about negotiating.

Lack of clarity on your part isn’t a problem on my part. What you’re referring to is “despite”, not “in spite of”.

In any case, you’re suggesting contradictory performance now. How would someone enjoy oneself while sacrificing? Pleasure from pain?

That’s rationalized altruism from embarrassment over a lack of sense of self.

We’re not talking about intimate relationships where people help after personal commitment. We’re talking about volunteering for strangers.

That’s despicable. You’re suggesting that people should endure humiliation. Do you believe initial volunteers have no dignity in the first place?

I want you to prove that people have intrinsic personal relationships with “society”. That way, we know volunteers aren’t being exploited for others’ irresponsible behavior. Volunteers don’t deserve to have to automatically assume that risk.

19

So by “accepted” you mean accepted in every possible aspect of their lives. Accepted by everyone, under any circumstances. Very practical. I’ve never met anyone like that; you?

Uh, no. Those who take the most win. That’s what rich people are.

Same point holds. And social skills are still very important. Without them, nobody would want to work with you or be around you, let alone accept your help.

“In spite of” and “despite” mean the same thing. Christ you are obnoxious.

Sacrifice doesn’t necessarily entail pain.

I don’t know or care what your point here is.

Explain how I’m suggesting anything like that please.

If you’re part of a society, you have a relationship with it.

20

By accepted, I mean someone who’s involved with references, experience, and training such that people will be willing to hire someone.

Yes, congratulations. Now can we stop talking about elites and get real, or are you ignoring how the labor market works for most people?

…and what sort of social skills do people learn in volunteering other than how to be a doormat? Would you kindly describe how volunteering teaches people to be clever, charming, or charismatic instead of boring, lame, and monotonous?

Still waiting for your explanation on enjoyment through sacrifice.

I don’t suppose you believe everyone’s a mindless drone, do you? Relationships take personal time, energy, and attention. Belonging to “society” doesn’t count. You’re expecting people to be slaves for others they don’t know.