Rioter Harold sends us this image and this simple warning…
The chuggers have returned.
As someone who buys lunch in the city every day I can tell you that they never left, they’re usually just in Garema place near Games Capital instead of out here on the city walk.
Still worth noting, and worth getting ready for.
Prepare your headphones, sunglasses, and best “don’t you dare try that manipulative guilt-tripping harassment on me” looks people, the chuggers are out and about.
Loading ...
Id like to see one chugger go to another chugger, and ask that they hand over their CC details.
Tim33 said :
If her grasp of Australian slang is weak you might just get a carrot.
I got bailed up three times by chuggers from different charities this morning in Garema Place.
Let’s look at those two parts; “manipulating people’s better natures” and “personal financial gain” separately. I’ll take the latter first.
What is wrong (unethical) about charities using professional efficient and effective fundraisers?
Is it because in your eyes the “nobility of the cause” is somehow diminished by it? If so then isn’t that a very selfish way of looking at charity? Thinking of charity through the perspective of “how noble it is” has lead to some very suboptimal outcomes for the receivers of charity. The charity contracting the fundraisers, is responsible to its cause. Their duty is to act in the best interests of the cause, not to maximise the sense of righteous virtue amongst those involved. Charities are becoming more professional – this is a good thing.
No I mean the chuggers themselves are making a profit off manipulating people. These people make money off every subscription, and they resort to means I don’t think appropriate to get that money.
Of course charities need to make money, and should attempt to be as efficient as possible (within the bounds of ethics and laws).
In terms of your ideas that charity should not have to be noble, or that their nobility is defined solely by what they do for people, I disagree entirely. What logically produces the best solution for the most people isn’t always the right course of action. One could argue that if Unicef decided to murder the richest 1% of the population and distrubute their wealth amongst the poorest 50%, they would end up making more people happy than sad (a definition you put up previously to determine what is ethical), but I’d still call it unethical. Charity, like everything in life, needs to be done right.
I never said something can’t be “rude, illegal, sacrilegious, and unethical all at once”. But I am saying that manners and ethics are INDEPENDENT (not mutually exclusive as you are implying). What is your ethical argument?
Mine is that the greater good, enabled by the “chuggers” fundraising far outweighs the minor inconvenience that their actions cause to you and me.
If you agree that something can be rude and unethical, then stop telling people that this is not a question of ethics but manners. It can be both.
My argument is that “the greater good” is no reasonable excuse for anything, and is not a shortcut to calling a behaviour ethical. See my example above.
You want their activities banned or curtailed. Fine. But then you MUST take ownership of the extra children dying from preventable disease for lack of the vaccinations that otherwise would have been available; the heightened misery that families or individual feel in tragic circumstances for the lack of charity support services that might otherwise have been available to them; the extra children dying from malnutrition and lack of medicine.
But don’t worry – at least no one will make you feel a pang of guilt as you rush down the street to get your favourite coffee.
Appeal to emotion. This little rant doesn’t change the facts of the argument one piece and is just an attempt to make me feel bad, and you feel superior.
I thought you were all about logic?
chewy14 said :
Too much to wish for….you know people just /have/ to be oppositional around here. The ones defending chugging should wear a sign saying “open to chuggers” and distract them all while we go about our days peacefully. 🙂
Barcham said :
Let’s look at those two parts; “manipulating people’s better natures” and “personal financial gain” separately. I’ll take the latter first.
What is wrong (unethical) about charities using professional efficient and effective fundraisers?
Is it because in your eyes the “nobility of the cause” is somehow diminished by it? If so then isn’t that a very selfish way of looking at charity? Thinking of charity through the perspective of “how noble it is” has lead to some very suboptimal outcomes for the receivers of charity. The charity contracting the fundraisers, is responsible to its cause. Their duty is to act in the best interests of the cause, not to maximise the sense of righteous virtue amongst those involved. Charities are becoming more professional – this is a good thing.
Perhaps it is the idea that someone is making a profit from charity? Get over it. Charities buy goods and services from companies every day of the week. Professional fundraising is just another such service. Perhaps you are concerned about excessive profits? Well I have no direct knowledge of the industry put it seems like a pretty simple business model, that would be easily replicated – I’d imagine that healthy competition in a free market should keep profits under control.
“[I]t’s unethical because it involves manipulating people’s better natures… ” This idea has already been dealt with:
howeph said :
I get that you don’t like having your “better natures manipulated”. If that was the sum total of what’s going on then I would agree with you. But the mild discomfort that we all collectively feel is so overwhelmingly outweighed by the potential misery averted through the “chuggers” raising of money for charity that your argument fails.
Barcham said :
I never said something can’t be “rude, illegal, sacrilegious, and unethical all at once”. But I am saying that manners and ethics are INDEPENDENT (not mutually exclusive as you are implying). What is your ethical argument?
Mine is that the greater good, enabled by the “chuggers” fundraising far outweighs the minor inconvenience that their actions cause to you and me.
You want their activities banned or curtailed. Fine. But then you MUST take ownership of the extra children dying from preventable disease for lack of the vaccinations that otherwise would have been available; the heightened misery that families or individual feel in tragic circumstances for the lack of charity support services that might otherwise have been available to them; the extra children dying from malnutrition and lack of medicine.
But don’t worry – at least no one will make you feel a pang of guilt as you rush down the street to get your favourite coffee.
L_Observer said :
I don’t.
Is an anserine comment one that is made of citrus and answers back?
Queen_of_the_Bun said :
Why explain yourself at all? These people don’t give a stuff if you donate elsewhere, they just need your details so they can get paid.
Tim33 said :
Ask her if she’d sleep with Shia LeBeouf if she was paid a million dollars. Then if she slaps you, explain that you’ve already established her line of business, and are now just negotiating the price.
L_Observer said :
You’re still confusing me making negative comments with harassment. If I followed Tony around saying mean things to him then sure, harassment. Saying something mean about him online is not harassment.
Also why do you keep talking about me like I’m not here?
Pitchka said :
Actually I’d like to ask one of those nice European Chugger women for a root and tell her straight up that I will sign up if I get said root. She wants something and so do I. It probably won’t work though.
Barcham said :
+1.
You are very funny Barcham.
I used to be a total mug for chuggers. I simply could not say no. It got to the point of being completely unaffordable and I had to cut some of the payments and HTFU.
Sorry Howeph, but I think it IS unethical of companies to build a business model based on making people feel guilty – for not wanting to make eye contact with a charming stranger because you know they are going to ask you for money, for being middle class in a first world country, for being able-bodied, etc – and using that guilt to gouge them for money.
I now just say to chuggers – “I’m sorry. I donate monthly to charities and NGOs that I have a long-standing relationship with” – but I don’t tell them that the relationship started with a chugger! – “please give me some information, I will read it tonight when I get home, and if I want to support this organisation, I will email them asking them how to set up a monthly payment and I will let them know that you were my introduction to their work.”
This usually works okay – we have a mutually respectful conversation and sometimes the charity does get me to sign up.
It certainly works a lot better than my earlier tactic of getting the mobile phone out and pretending to take a call while walking past – very embarrassing when my phone started ringing when I was already at the “ahem, um, um” stage of my imaginary conversation.
Barcham’s claims that his “one sarcastic editorial comment about the Prime Minister does not harassment make”. Presumably his comment at #21 on the same article means that “I’m not picking on Tony because he’s a Liberal, I’m picking on him because he’s a horrible human being who is doing horrible things.” constitutes a second ‘sarcastic editorial comment’.
I have no particular persuasion towards any political party, but I recognize anserine comments when I see them.
Aeek said :
And thus we’ve concluded that gay marriage is the only ethical option.
PROBLEM SOLVED!
I want to give a more expansive response later (maybe not today) but first I want to correct what looks like a misunderstanding:
Barcham said :
I should have written “Please note I have constrained my analysis purely to the ethics of the issue” instead of “activity”. So I meant to “pick” the big picture option, from an ethics perspective.
Sorry for the confusion.
RedDogInCan said :
By that measure, heterosexual sex is unethical.
I honestly thought this would be one of (and possibly only) issue on which all rioters would agree about.
Chuggers should be locked up in stocks on City walk where we can laugh and throw things at them. I’d actually pay money to charity to be able to do it. Possible new marketing technique for them?
RedDogInCan said :
Yes I did read that, and even started to try and formulate Bachram’s argument into that form. But I a) didn’t feel it was right to start putting words into his mouth; and b) for brevity decided to delete it. Now I regret it.
RedDogInCan said :
The problem with deontology, or rule based ethics, is that the outcome seems to depends on what rules you choose to follow.
From Bachram’s post the rules he seems to be following is that of what’s socially polite. I can think of obvious extreme examples where following such rules are stupid and clearly unethical e.g. When exiting a burning plane after a crash you don’t say “After you. No, no after You” when deciding who jumps down the slide first whilst your fellow passengers are burning to death behind you. Hence why ethics is not about following social conventions.
You’ve nominated the single rule that “one should do unto others as they would have done unto them”. Well speaking for myself I would have the “chuggers” ask me for donations, just never aggressively. I think they provide a valuable service. This rule to me seems rather arbitary and subjective.
An alternative, and what would be my preferred rule, is the rule utilitarianism. But this just makes the deontological argument the same as my original simple utilitarian argument above.
This, compared to th
L_Observer said :
The parking photos harass no one, one sarcastic editorial comment about the Prime Minister does not harassment make, and I did not release the plate number, the person who uploaded the video did. I merely reported it.
I probably shouldn’t have called him a jerk though to be fair.