6 ms·

In my experience with local philanthropy, there are donors who have no interest in "naming opportunities" and those for whom it is all about the name. To me it

In my experience with local philanthropy, there are donors who have no interest in "naming opportunities" and those for whom it is all about the name. To me it says a lot about the character of the donor if they specifically want as little fuss as possible about the donation, and especially if they do not want something named after them. It is the cause they support, not their own egos. Personally, the more often I see a particular donor's name attached to a building, the less admiration I have for the person. So for me the ethical defects of the company are consistent with the desire for the family name to be emblazoned everywhere.

craftyguy 9y ago
Sometimes buildings are named after folks just because they were awesome. Too bad it's not easy to distinguish between awesome people who had buildings named after them from the much less awesome people who essentially bought the naming rights to a building.
- username223 9y ago
  One indicator is whether the person was still alive when the building was named. Naming stuff after yourself when you're still alive (https://chanzuckerberg.com https://chanzuckerberg.com) is a good way to cheapen it.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    No, naming it after yourself cheapens it, dead or alive. Someone else has to do it.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      Kinda hard to name something after yourself when you're dead.
      - craftyguy 9y ago
        You could add it to your will. "From the time of my death, my compound that I leave to my yorkie shalt be known forever as rhiz(h)ome"
      - lostlogin 9y ago
        It’s easier - I don’t need my stuff and the proceeds from selling it can pay for really big letters on the building.
joemag 9y ago
I agree, and I feel the same way about other public figures. Anytime I see a famous actor/actress that live a mostly private life, I immediately start thinking of them in a positive light.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Just know that many times a family has done it on behalf of someone deceased. A name on a plaque doesn’t mean that person said, “put my name on it!” Although it can mean that, and when it does I agree with your assessment.
gras 9y ago
I've come to appreciate vanity donators, as their political intentions in supporting the "good cause" is more transparant then.
pstuart 9y ago
And it went well beyond the names, to financial gain as well as "personal favors".
ryuuchin 9y ago
Reminds me of the quote by George Steinbrenner[1]. "If you do something nice for somebody, and more than just the two of you know about it, maybe you're doing it for the wrong reason" [1] https://tree.mindbloom.com/apps/inspiration/detail/quote/563b31a2-e4ce-431c-bc0b-c7a854c91bfd/ https://tree.mindbloom.com/apps/inspiration/detail/quote/563...
- ygaf 9y ago
  The Bible teaches this too.
  - jsolson 9y ago
    Yes, but it's tied up in a bunch of other bits like not eating pork and worshipping a particular deity. The secular quip raises the same questions about human motivations without the other baggage.
    - philwelch 9y ago
      Because clearly George Steinbrenner is a better moral teacher than Jesus.
      - wavefunction 9y ago
        Jesus didn't talk about eating pork or not though.
        philwelch 9y ago
        True, but he did teach about not doing good deeds just to show off, which was the original point.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        If GS taught the same without claiming to be the son of god, then yes.
    - 9y ago
klenwell 9y ago
Of course, when Larry David is involved, things can get a little more complicated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De90ozOOquY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De90ozOOquY
dsacco 9y ago
I’m more of a consequentialist; I consider a larger philanthropist who cares about public attribution to be more admirable than someone who is a smaller philanthropist but doesn’t care about public attribution. Personally, I would absolutely like to have my name on something if I were to donate tens or hundreds of millions of dollars towards it. In my opinion the intention or ego of a philanthropist is approximately negligible when it comes to their charity and donations. If a billionaire wants to solve a problem out of a sense of personal grandiosity, or in a vain attempt at figurative immortality: so be it. At least they have the capability to do something good and are actually following through with it. In a vague sense there might be more nobility in anonymous charity, but nobility doesn’t contribute real resources to a problem. Phrased another way: if a billionaire donates $100M to a charity and a pauper donates $1 to the same charity, but the billionaire requires his name to be affiliated, which of the two is doing more “good”? If you believe the answer is the poorer person, your axioms are fundamentally incompatible with consequentialism, because you’re incorporating selflessness into your definition of good. But if you believe that the billionaire is doing more good in this example despite his vanity, you’re a consequentialist - as they say, we’ve established terms, and now we’re just haggling.
- herodotus 9y ago
  It is not a question of "good" it is a question of my admiration of the donor. On my organizations drives, I completely supported the naming campaigns because I accepted the view that some donors generosity is tied to their naming. I am happy that those named people chose to support a cause that I care about. But I always instructed staff members to honour the small donor as much as the large - it might be as much of a percentage of their net worth in both cases. And I will always have respect for the donors of large amounts who do not need to be named.
- burntwater 9y ago
  You seem to be implying that philanthropists who don't do naming rights only give smaller donations. Any evidence to back that up? If Philanthropist A donates $10 million and asks for his name on the building, while Philanthropist B donates $10 million and requests no name on the building, I will absolutely have much more respect for Philanthropist B.
air7 9y ago
Of all the ways a person, especially a rich one, can stroke their ego, philanthropy is probably one of the better ones. IMO "Ego" should not be considered a bad word. We all have one, and we all enjoy stroking it. It's human. For some reason we have a hard time acknowledging that.
matt4077 9y ago
I see where you're coming from, but consider the effects public philanthropy has. Bill & Melinda Gates, for example, have become role models, changing the cultural norms of behaviour for the super rich. Warren Buffet's addition to their foundation can be directly linked to their efforts, but there are without a doubt hundreds more following their lead less explicitly. Zuckerberg comes to mind (although I'm not sure how 'real' his efforts are). That's far better than what previously defined that slice of society, i. e. golf, private jets, and faux-gold interiors.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  I thought it was Buffet that helped bring Bill Gates around to charity rather than vice versa, with Melinda the primary driver in the Gates' philanthropy.
zappo2938 9y ago
Steven Spielberg rarely gives his name to donations and philanthropy because, as he said in an interview years ago why he lent his name to the Shoah foundation, to the Jews god does not recognize a good deed unless it is anonymous. Meaning it has to be done with humility and doing it for name sake is a matter of pride so it goes unnoticed by god.
- tehlike 9y ago
  I believe this is true for most religions. It should also be part of "common decency", for lack of a better word.
mcguire 9y ago
Personally, a bigger issue is the level of control the donor requires over the activities of the donation. Cf. the Peter O'Donnell building at UT Austin. (https://research.utexas.edu/acesit/aces-building/ https://research.utexas.edu/acesit/aces-building/)
WalterBright 9y ago
People who donate anonymously still get a reward - they feel good about it.

craftyguy 9y ago

Sometimes buildings are named after folks just because they were awesome. Too bad it's not easy to distinguish between awesome people who had buildings named after them from the much less awesome people who essentially bought the naming rights to a building.

username223 9y ago
One indicator is whether the person was still alive when the building was named. Naming stuff after yourself when you're still alive (https://chanzuckerberg.com https://chanzuckerberg.com) is a good way to cheapen it.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  No, naming it after yourself cheapens it, dead or alive. Someone else has to do it.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    Kinda hard to name something after yourself when you're dead.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      You could add it to your will. "From the time of my death, my compound that I leave to my yorkie shalt be known forever as rhiz(h)ome"
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      It’s easier - I don’t need my stuff and the proceeds from selling it can pay for really big letters on the building.

joemag 9y ago

I agree, and I feel the same way about other public figures. Anytime I see a famous actor/actress that live a mostly private life, I immediately start thinking of them in a positive light.

QAPereo 9y ago
Just know that many times a family has done it on behalf of someone deceased. A name on a plaque doesn’t mean that person said, “put my name on it!” Although it can mean that, and when it does I agree with your assessment.

gras 9y ago

I've come to appreciate vanity donators, as their political intentions in supporting the "good cause" is more transparant then.

pstuart 9y ago

And it went well beyond the names, to financial gain as well as "personal favors".

ryuuchin 9y ago

Reminds me of the quote by George Steinbrenner[1]. "If you do something nice for somebody, and more than just the two of you know about it, maybe you're doing it for the wrong reason" [1] https://tree.mindbloom.com/apps/inspiration/detail/quote/563b31a2-e4ce-431c-bc0b-c7a854c91bfd/ https://tree.mindbloom.com/apps/inspiration/detail/quote/563...

ygaf 9y ago
The Bible teaches this too.
- jsolson 9y ago
  Yes, but it's tied up in a bunch of other bits like not eating pork and worshipping a particular deity. The secular quip raises the same questions about human motivations without the other baggage.
  - philwelch 9y ago
    Because clearly George Steinbrenner is a better moral teacher than Jesus.
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      Jesus didn't talk about eating pork or not though.
      - philwelch 9y ago
        True, but he did teach about not doing good deeds just to show off, which was the original point.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      If GS taught the same without claiming to be the son of god, then yes.
  - 9y ago

klenwell 9y ago

Of course, when Larry David is involved, things can get a little more complicated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De90ozOOquY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De90ozOOquY

dsacco 9y ago

I’m more of a consequentialist; I consider a larger philanthropist who cares about public attribution to be more admirable than someone who is a smaller philanthropist but doesn’t care about public attribution. Personally, I would absolutely like to have my name on something if I were to donate tens or hundreds of millions of dollars towards it. In my opinion the intention or ego of a philanthropist is approximately negligible when it comes to their charity and donations. If a billionaire wants to solve a problem out of a sense of personal grandiosity, or in a vain attempt at figurative immortality: so be it. At least they have the capability to do something good and are actually following through with it. In a vague sense there might be more nobility in anonymous charity, but nobility doesn’t contribute real resources to a problem. Phrased another way: if a billionaire donates $100M to a charity and a pauper donates $1 to the same charity, but the billionaire requires his name to be affiliated, which of the two is doing more “good”? If you believe the answer is the poorer person, your axioms are fundamentally incompatible with consequentialism, because you’re incorporating selflessness into your definition of good. But if you believe that the billionaire is doing more good in this example despite his vanity, you’re a consequentialist - as they say, we’ve established terms, and now we’re just haggling.

herodotus 9y ago
It is not a question of "good" it is a question of my admiration of the donor. On my organizations drives, I completely supported the naming campaigns because I accepted the view that some donors generosity is tied to their naming. I am happy that those named people chose to support a cause that I care about. But I always instructed staff members to honour the small donor as much as the large - it might be as much of a percentage of their net worth in both cases. And I will always have respect for the donors of large amounts who do not need to be named.
burntwater 9y ago
You seem to be implying that philanthropists who don't do naming rights only give smaller donations. Any evidence to back that up? If Philanthropist A donates $10 million and asks for his name on the building, while Philanthropist B donates $10 million and requests no name on the building, I will absolutely have much more respect for Philanthropist B.

air7 9y ago

Of all the ways a person, especially a rich one, can stroke their ego, philanthropy is probably one of the better ones. IMO "Ego" should not be considered a bad word. We all have one, and we all enjoy stroking it. It's human. For some reason we have a hard time acknowledging that.

matt4077 9y ago

I see where you're coming from, but consider the effects public philanthropy has. Bill & Melinda Gates, for example, have become role models, changing the cultural norms of behaviour for the super rich. Warren Buffet's addition to their foundation can be directly linked to their efforts, but there are without a doubt hundreds more following their lead less explicitly. Zuckerberg comes to mind (although I'm not sure how 'real' his efforts are). That's far better than what previously defined that slice of society, i. e. golf, private jets, and faux-gold interiors.

wavefunction 9y ago
I thought it was Buffet that helped bring Bill Gates around to charity rather than vice versa, with Melinda the primary driver in the Gates' philanthropy.

zappo2938 9y ago

Steven Spielberg rarely gives his name to donations and philanthropy because, as he said in an interview years ago why he lent his name to the Shoah foundation, to the Jews god does not recognize a good deed unless it is anonymous. Meaning it has to be done with humility and doing it for name sake is a matter of pride so it goes unnoticed by god.

tehlike 9y ago
I believe this is true for most religions. It should also be part of "common decency", for lack of a better word.

mcguire 9y ago

Personally, a bigger issue is the level of control the donor requires over the activities of the donation. Cf. the Peter O'Donnell building at UT Austin. (https://research.utexas.edu/acesit/aces-building/ https://research.utexas.edu/acesit/aces-building/)

WalterBright 9y ago

People who donate anonymously still get a reward - they feel good about it.