Pay it Forward

[Trey of Diamonds]

I teach a religious education class at our UU church and this year we are focusing on Josephson's six pillars of character. This month we are studying the caring pillar and I went through the historical aspects of charity, mostly the giving of alms and what it means to the different world religions. Then I went into a more modern concept, paying it forward.

Paying it forward is a concept that was put into play by Benjamin Franklin when we wrote a letter to Benjamin Webb explaining how he wanted a debt repaid. Then, in 1951, Robert A. Heinlein coined the term pay it forward in his story Between Planets. In 2000, Catherine Hyde added the concept of repaying the dept not only forward, but in triplicate; for a good deed rendered, you must pay it forward three times. This concept was introduced in her book Pay it Forward and the movie version of the same name.

Now there are several organizations that promote the Pay it Forward philosophy.
PAY IT FORWARD FOUNDATION
Heinlein Society - Official Robert Anson Heinlein Estate Endorsed Website
GivingGame.org

So, for the debate, consider the following questions.

1. Is Pay it Forward a good concept or is it better to pay your debts to those who originated them?

2. When paying it forward, should you pay the amount or deed equal to what you received as the concept was originally envisioned or is the new concept of paying the full amount or deed to three people a better way to go?

 

[san miguel]

1. one should always repay his debts, but the pay it forward concept is meant to spread good across the Earth. Think of the butterfly effect. A butterflies wings flapping on one side of the planet can cause a hurricane on the other side of the planet. The butterfly wings flapping represent a person's actions. If one does a good or evil act that may seem insignificant at the time (Good: opening a door for someone, helping someone up who fell down, pulling over on the side of the road to help someone whose car has broken down, complimenting someone, etc... Evil: hitting the close button on an elevator while someone is trying to enter, laughing at someone who falls down, flipping someone off who has a broken down vehicle on the side of the freeway, saying a mean joke in order to make fun of someone and feel cool in front of other people, etc...), then this represents the butterflies wings. It may seems small and insignificant, but that one act will spread from one person to another depending on whether the act was good or evil (good spreads good to others, and others spread good as well. and vice versa). Anyways that one act will spread continuously until it finishes. By the time it finishes that act will spread to the other side of the planet and cause a hurricane. This hurricane can either be love or evil (bringing peace to a nation or war). People do not realize that small acts actually effect the world greatly. So the point of pay it forward is to spread peace and love across the world to unite humans for the cause of good. however, pay it forward has an opposite twin called "spread harm to others". This works in the same way. One little evil act spreads to three people and each person it effects spreads it to three more people, and so on and so forth. So i figure now the only way to counter evil is to constantly use the pay it forward method (whether a small or big act of kindness) in order to bring peace on earth. After humans on earth bring peace, then everything else (type of government, religion, etc...) can be adressed (peacefully of course).

 

[whereismynotecard]

1. Pay it forward is a good concept, because usually the debts you owe are to massive credit companies who don't even need money and it would be better to help out individual people who could use some monies or something.

2. Neither. I think you should do what you can. If you are really poor and some guy gives you $1000, it wouldn't make sense to have to pay $1000 to three different people. That would just make life worse for said poor person. Generally, I think everyone should just be nice to each other. If you are really poor and can't actually give someone some money to help them or whatever, just hold doors open for people or help old ladies cross the street. And if you are really rich and have more money than you know what to do with, give some of it to some poor people. Just do what you can to make other people happy.

 

[Willamena]

1. Is Pay it Forward a good concept or is it better to pay your debts to those who originated them?

Better to pay a debt where debt actually exists, otherwise you are indulging a fantasy --and worse, a fantasy that you've accomplished something.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

[/font][/color]
Better to pay a debt where debt actually exists, otherwise you are indulging a fantasy --and worse, a fantasy that you've accomplished something.

So you feel that the pay it forward concept is a fantasy and accomplishes nothing? Can you explain why?

 

[Willamena]

So you feel that the pay it forward concept is a fantasy and accomplishes nothing? Can you explain why?

Well, I didn't say that ("accomplish nothing" is a fallacy), but it's a fantasy that a debt has been paid.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Well, I didn't say that ("accomplish nothing" is a fallacy), but it's a fantasy that a debt has been paid.

Ok, but why? If the person who loaned you the money asked you to pay it forward to someone else and you did, is the debt not repaid? If you force the person who gave you the money to take it back against their wishes what have you accomplished?

 

[Willamena]

Ok, but why? If the person who loaned you the money asked you to pay it forward to someone else and you did, is the debt not repaid? If you force the person who gave you the money to take it back against their wishes what have you accomplished?

The person who loaned you the money is not the holder of the debt, you are. You are the one to decide what constitutes payment of it. That's the basis of my answer to your first question.

Hope that helps.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The person who loaned you the money is not the holder of the debt, you are. You are the one to decide what constitutes payment of it. That's the basis of my answer to your first question.

Hope that helps.

It helps to understand what you are saying but I disagree. For me, a debt is a condition between two people and the conditions of that debt are decided on by both parties, not just the one. If only the one person gets to decide what constitutes payment then they could decide that paying half of the debt was enough and the person who loaned the amount wouldn't have a say.

 

[Willamena]

If only the one person gets to decide what constitutes payment then they could decide that paying half of the debt was enough and the person who loaned the amount wouldn't have a say.

That would be deciding what constitutes debt, as well as its associated payment, and further it decides the quantity of debt, rather than the quality of it.

But no matter.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

That would be deciding what constitutes debt, as well as its associated payment, and further it decides the quantity of debt, rather than the quality of it.

But no matter.

You've completely lost me. Do both parties decide what the debt is and how it is paid back or not? What exactly is the quality of debt as opposed to quantity of debt?

 

[Willamena]

You've completely lost me. Do both parties decide what the debt is and how it is paid back or not? What exactly is the quality of debt as opposed to quantity of debt?

I just meant to point out that we were talking about the quality of debt, and that the part about the debt's quantity was off-topic. If you think both parties decide what debt is, then that's where we disagree --there we can agree.

Quality is what is is. Quantity is how much.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I just meant to point out that we were talking about the quality of debt, and that the part about the debt's quantity was off-topic. If you think both parties decide what debt is, then that's where we disagree --there we can agree.

Quality is what is is. Quantity is how much.

So, you're saying that the amount of debt is set and non-negotiable. Then why is there interest on loans? Off topic I know, but I find your definition to be strange.

So, the quality of debt is how the debt is paid off and is only decided by the person paying, is that what you're saying? I find this strange as well. Do you have any evidence of this beyond your opinion? I ask because this is very new and even a bit alien to me. I have never heard of this concept and wonder if anyone else has either. Historically, debt has had multiple forms and processes but all have included an agreement between 2 or more parties. I have never heard of a debt process that relied on the sole discretion of only 1 of the parties.

 

[Willamena]

So, you're saying that the amount of debt is set and non-negotiable. Then why is there interest on loans? Off topic I know, but I find your definition to be strange.

No, I'm saying that talk of the quantity of debt is off-topic. So far in the thread it's been about quality.

So, the quality of debt is how the debt is paid off and is only decided by the person paying, is that what you're saying?

The quality of the debt is "what a debt is", i.e. the owing of repayment. It's conceptual in nature.

I answered your questions as best I can. I'm not going to tell you your answers are wrong.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I answered your questions as best I can. I'm not going to tell you your answers are wrong.

I'm just trying to understand the concept you are putting forward. I admit I'm not the best when it comes to money matters and do well just to keep my checking account balanced. But still, I have never heard of debt being considered in the manner that you have stated. All I asked was if there was any examples of what you're proposing and you don't seem to want to give any. I assume its because this is you're own theory rather than an accepted norm.

 

[Willamena]

All I asked was if there was any examples of what you're proposing and you don't seem to want to give any. I assume its because this is you're own theory rather than an accepted norm.

No, it's just that regardless of the example, either your interpretation or mine works. Our interpretations work for each of us: that's why we have that interpretation.

Did your first question in the OP not call for opinions? I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Did your first question in the OP not call for opinions? I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

No, you didn't misunderstand but maybe I did. You were presenting your opinion as though it was an accepted process and that confused me because I hadn't heard it put that way before. My bad.

 

[Willamena]

No, you didn't misunderstand but maybe I did. You were presenting your opinion as though it was an accepted process and that confused me because I hadn't heard it put that way before. My bad.

No worries!

As a side, and in my opinion, that's the way opinions should be presented (and usually are). If you don't back your opinion with the weight of your beliefs, who's going to take it seriously?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

To answer my own questions, I like the concept of Pay it Forward but I prefer the traditional method rather than the new pay it three times forward method. It seems to me that to expect a person to repay a debt three times seems counter productive and will cause some to not bother. I understand that banks and loaning institutions need to tack on some interest to pay for their services but to add interest to a good deed seems a bit excessive to me.