Understandable is the wrong word. Not relevant.

And obviously if you value art more than human life you slink out of my argument. But most people who are defending their contributions are not willing to use that escape hatch.

And its not just about the super wealthy either. Suppose someone walks to Notre Dame with two hundred fifty dollar bills intending to donate to the restoration. When he gets there he finds a line of desperate people each of whom needs fifty bucks to feed their children for a week. (They have permission to ask for that much and then move on when they get it.) There are a dozen people on line so you decide to help them as they pass you. But then the line quickly swells. After how many people are paid do you announce, "sorry people but I'm keeping the rest to help build this building?"

I'm guessing that most people would give the whole ten grand to the suffering even though they didn't realize it when they woke up that morning.

So what do you think of my compromise idea that I once wrote about where the government rates different types of philanthropy and offers different size tax deductions based on what is deemed most important?

One of those rare occasions where I would happily bet against you.

Double checking that you understood what I was saying. Which was that they would not have the heart to give out some fifties (all 200 of which are exposed) and then announce to those still desperate (none of whom they expected to see lined up) that they were giving the rest to the building.

Well, I'll agree that people generally do not act rationally according to their stated goals when they donate to charity. However, rich people frequently do use exactly this escape hatch, spending vast sums on art, donating money to various cultural organizations, etc. explicitly for the benefit of art and culture.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. Yes, we can construct scenarios where the higher salience of some example of human suffering might overwhelm a person's desire to give money to some other cause. But why would you assume that is a more accurate account of their priorities than what happened in the real world? The Notre Dame Cathedral fire made a case of cultural destruction very salient to people, so they gave a lot of money to helping restore it. The earthquake in Japan made the suffering of a lot of people salient so they gave a lot of money to help those suffering. Some individual people might try to rationalize their priorities and so give money on that basis, but that is clearly the exception. But for the majority of people who give to charity, they are just sending money to whatever happens to catch their eye with a good hook or story.

If you want to claim that it is irrational to give money to restoring the Notre Dame Cathedral rather than to more directly alleviating human suffering, you'll have to do so from a perspective with substantive moral commitments rather than just an account of human psychology with all its foibles.

i'm skeptical to let the government, especially this current administration, "rate" types of charity when they would clearly push all preferred religious giving to the top. i'd also be skeptical of anyone trying to rate whats more important to the world.

But aren't they "rating" what to do with taxes anyway? My main point is that rich people would push back less hard on redistribution if they had a little say in how its done.

I'm probably not betting if an announcement is required. If they can just put their heads down and walk on by then I'll take your money.

I'm also assuming there's no audience factor. That could change everything.

Vaguely relevant and interesting: Offering tax breaks sooner makes people give more, according to a new study.

This was my first thought over the delayed gratification issue. Tax deduction for donating isn't a very gratifying motive in any case.

I think it is obscene. However, not because I think there are better things to donate on. But rather because the whole structure, that enables individuals to have such a power over the community.

Now they donated. Maybe next time they wont. Now I dont care for art and even less for architecture, but I certainly dont want the decisions for whether we build/rebuild/maintain great art/architecture lay on the shoulders of some individuals whim, whose only qualification is having money.

Or in other words. I think it is obscene to have a structure where the community cant decide these things for themselves.

I'm wondering why the church wasn't insured.

Was it because they knew they could count on donations if something happened? Or is it not something that can't be insured? Who even owns it?

There was SOME insurance coverage. In fact, some of the pieces of art were insured for several million Euros. Building coverages are likely there as well, but much like a more basic analogy to auto insurance, it likely is not a stated value that comes even remotely close to covering costs. However, the Cathedral is a State-owned institution, so the government tends to assume the burden.

Lots of good information in an article on one of the insurance sites- https://www.insurancejournal.com/new.../22/524309.htm

I saw an article on that same site which indicated there are some detailed plans that remain from an architect that had worked on Notre Dame roughly 200 years ago. Things like color-coding on what sorts of stone went where and whatnot. How do you put a value on that manner of craftsmanship? THAT is where the donations come into the picture.

Notre Dame is more than a tourist attraction to some people. The loss there is not dissimilar from the losses of artwork through the destruction in Afghanistan by the Taliban. A huge difference is that nobody is willing to assume the risk that Afghani restorations would not again be deliberately destroyed...

What people think of you isn't relevant.

In the simplest of terms, the answer was a resounding no.

In any case, as it became quickly clear from my subsequent posts, I am in at least 90% in agreement with the post you made. And I really hate Original Position's "drab" comment given the number of people in this world still suffering. Very few people, even among those not suffering, will alter their opinion of the drabness of the world very much if the Louvre burns down tomorrow.

You think people shouldn't support art? Or that art doesn't make the world less drab?

I can understand thinking that the money should be spent on alleviating human suffering before art, but it seems strange to deny that art doesn't brighten and make the world more interesting.

As long as it's good art and that pissing on the cross art!

But I didn't say that. I said it wouldn't alter most peoples drabness "very much".

Okay, then your argument just isn't any good. My claim was that getting rid of public and private funding for the arts would make the world a drab place. The Louvre burning down has little to do with whether this claim is true or false.

I'm not sure what you are saying. What I am basically saying is that we should not have Ferraris or superconducting colliders until humans are not dying due to lack of money (as long as it is true, which I think it is, that no colliders and no Ferraris would save some lives.)

You will now want to ask me where I would draw the line. My answer is middle class comfortableness and scientific research that is apt to help people. Going further down than that is apt to cause more harm than good.

I actually think that I'm actually pretty close to microbet on these issues but he got kidnapped so I can't ask him.

I feel like there's an important path dependency issue in politics that's easy to overlook. Maybe in the abstract it would be better if there were no ferraris or superconducting colliders. But how do you get there? It's not enough to know in the abstract that this is a reasonable idea. You have to figure out how to get there without causing more problems than you're solving. That's not always trivial.

I'm reminded I need to actually get to writing up the chapter of Harris' Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches that got me thinking about some of this again lately, for the playground.

No point in thinking about that unless most people agree that you should try to get almost there. (I say "almost" because there are some very smart people who could help the world but won't unless there is a ferrari waiting for them. So we should keep a few on standby.)

There's always this:



(from WaPo).

There is also an identity component. Notre Dame is, in addition to its artistic, religious, and cultural values, very much part of the French (and Catholic) identity. To many people, seeing the place burn is very much like seeing a part of their soul burn to ashes.

Now my answer directly to OP:
No, it's not obscene. It's their money and they are free to choose what causes to support.

Response to DS's seeing starving people at Notre Dame:
Yeah, it's true, people wouldn't show up at Notre Dame planning to give their money away to the hungry and poor. And I will tell you right now, a lot of people who donate a large % of their annual paychecks don't even give the homeless in NYC a second look. People know they can't save the world and they have to choose the causes they support.

Start at 0:57. People don't want to live like Clay Davis basically.



PS: no, they don't teach how to get a jury nullification in law school.

How does that true statement relate to my point?