4 ms·

If they are deterred from donating to charity by the negative press, was it philanthropy in the first place?

by hiccuphippo 7y ago

GarrisonPrime 7y ago
I love my family members, but when one of them started beating my mother we cut him out of our lives. Did I not really love him in the first place?
ben509 7y ago
Why does it matter if their motives are pure? You don't need a moral justification to do a thing that helps other people and is entirely at your personal expense.
- zpallin 7y ago
  You're right, but unless a person is spending money for a social-cause that benefits us all, they absolutely do not deserve any special status, press coverage or a title such as "philanthropist." They're just spending money for themselves, and that's nothing special. Anyone can do that.
  - ben509 7y ago
    If everyone has to benefit, this seems to define philanthropy to be an impossible feat. I suspect you're thinking of some celebrities or causes you agree with and assuming their motives must be pure because they agree with your interests. This isn't saying you have some devious intent, I'm just pointing out a potential unquestioned assumption you may hold. Maybe the compromise is this: Wanting people to like you (or wanting good PR) may be an impure motive, but it's also the least concerning impure motive. After all, if a very powerful person wants to be liked by others, that motivation forces them to then listen to others and consider their interests.
    - zpallin 7y ago
      I didn't try to define philanthropy at all. Call it what you will. I'm not thinking of any celebrities, and it's really weird that you made that assumption. It's simply unimpressive to me when people give away money through foundations or other organized means just cause they're rich. The bar should be much higher to earn anyone's praise. That's all I'm saying. And I don't have anything to add to what you've written.

4 ms·

If they are deterred from donating to charity by the negative press, was it philanthropy in the first place?

by hiccuphippo 7y ago

If they are deterred from donating to charity by the negative press, was it philanthropy in the first place?

GarrisonPrime 7y ago
I love my family members, but when one of them started beating my mother we cut him out of our lives. Did I not really love him in the first place?
ben509 7y ago
Why does it matter if their motives are pure? You don't need a moral justification to do a thing that helps other people and is entirely at your personal expense.
- zpallin 7y ago
  You're right, but unless a person is spending money for a social-cause that benefits us all, they absolutely do not deserve any special status, press coverage or a title such as "philanthropist." They're just spending money for themselves, and that's nothing special. Anyone can do that.
  - ben509 7y ago
    If everyone has to benefit, this seems to define philanthropy to be an impossible feat. I suspect you're thinking of some celebrities or causes you agree with and assuming their motives must be pure because they agree with your interests. This isn't saying you have some devious intent, I'm just pointing out a potential unquestioned assumption you may hold. Maybe the compromise is this: Wanting people to like you (or wanting good PR) may be an impure motive, but it's also the least concerning impure motive. After all, if a very powerful person wants to be liked by others, that motivation forces them to then listen to others and consider their interests.
    - zpallin 7y ago
      I didn't try to define philanthropy at all. Call it what you will. I'm not thinking of any celebrities, and it's really weird that you made that assumption. It's simply unimpressive to me when people give away money through foundations or other organized means just cause they're rich. The bar should be much higher to earn anyone's praise. That's all I'm saying. And I don't have anything to add to what you've written.