Well, that certainly cleared a lot of things up! The Review-Journal, which was oddly worried in the hardcopy edition about "civility" in political discourse today–a position that so obviously contradicts the editorial policies of the paper that one could only spew one's morning coffee upon reading it–tells us that the real reason for supporting local charities is to hook up with power players. (RJ)
Ah, yes, do good only if you can get personal gain out of it. Surely the Vegas golden rule.
No doubt dear old Immanuel Kant was a-spinning in his grave. One of his pet peeves was folks who think you should only do good stuff if you figure you'll get something out of it. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sums up of the point nicely:
[P]ossessing and maintaining one's moral goodness is the very
condition under which anything else is worth having or
pursuing. Intelligence and even pleasure are worth having only on the
condition that they do not require giving up one's fundamental moral
convictions. The value of a good will thus cannot be that it secures
certain valuable ends, whether of our own or of others, since their
value is entirely conditional on our possessing and maintaining a good
will. Indeed, since it is good under any condition, its goodness must
not depend on any particular conditions obtaining. Thus, Kant points
out that a good will must then also be good in itself and not
in virtue of its relationship to other things such as the agent's own
happiness or overall welfare. (SEP)
But then, using Sig "Wille Horton/Anoint Gibbons" Rogich as an example of a "successful" Nevadan doing "good works" is sorta like putting up Satan as an example of an angel. Arguably true, but still, you've got to be kidding.