3 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoIf 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 agoI 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.