14 ms·

I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return w

I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible. This is not to dismiss the likes of Bill Gates: he has been very public with his donations, but in some cases (notably celebrity) notoriety in your donations may create a multiplier effect as it encourages others to do likewise. Even so, I think this is still on a lower-rung, philanthropy-wise, than Feeney's approach. Nonetheless, we're sitting here praising someone who reduced himself from billions to $2M, but we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself. The value of money is nonlinear. I'm sure that Feeney would say this as well: he no doubt sees himself as saddled with the burden of billions of dollars rather than someone doing something amazing. I wonder if I ever will have the strength to do what he has done.

jacquesm 6y ago
That's a good point. And 'broke' isn't 100% broke just yet, he's not going to have to sleep under a bridge. But he's broke enough that the wrong accident can put him on the far side of the line easily enough. Obviously this goes for many people but they tend to end up in that situation by accident, not by design and as an example to other billionaires he's pretty impressive. Try imagining Larry Ellison doing this.
- compsciphd 6y ago
  I'd presume (perhaps incorrectly, so perhaps hope), that he's pretty insured up to avoid that fate.
- maximente 6y ago
  it's really hard to imagine someone at age 89, with 2 social security incomes and $2M, who is apparently more frugal than most technology workers, being one "wrong accident" away from "the far side of the line easily enough". an 80% loss of that $2M cash leaves him with a paltry $400K which, assuming a rate of return == inflation, is 10 years of $40K/yr spending, to say nothing of 2x SS income. people's idea of "being broke" is just ridiculous.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Healthcare in the United States is perfectly designed to take your every last penny in the last 6 months of your life. If Chuck Feeney isn't actually broke today, there is a fair chance that he will be on his death bed.
    - woobar 6y ago
      At his age healthcare is covered by taxpayers, just like in most other countries.
      - rhino369 6y ago
        Nursing homes are only covered longterm if you are destitute. Good places will take your assets and use them all up until it’s gone then apply for Medicaid. Won’t pay for personal in-home nurses either. But 2 million should buy him plenty of elder care. I would have kept 10 million just in case.
        garmaine 6y ago
        Nursing home is not “healthcare.”
        xxpor 6y ago
        If you don't go, you die. How is that not?
    - imtringued 6y ago
      >If Chuck Feeney isn't actually broke today, there is a fair chance that he will be on his death bed. Aren't you forgetting that that he already "lost" the vast majority of his wealth? If he actually cared about the money he would have given it to his children. If he loses his last $2 million on healthcare he probably wouldn't care.
    - C4stor 6y ago
      He'll never be "broke", because with his money he acquired something way more long lasting than cash, which is social acquaintances. Philanthropy has been used to this exact end throughout history, and is still today. So of course his billionnaires friends will bail him out in the highly improbable event he should really need the money. The level of networking he reached means he doesn't need to spend a dollar until his last breath if he so wished.
- vecinu 6y ago
  Wouldn't Chuck just receive donations from the thousands of people he personally knew and helped? I doubt people would let him go broke under any scenario... the man spent time with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
  - compiler-guy 6y ago
    Maybe. But maybe not. He doesn't know, and we don't know. And therefore he is taking a big risk.
gridlockd 6y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7PHIh2pqh0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7PHIh2pqh0
gringoDan 6y ago
> we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself Is it? This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice / self-deprivation is what matters. [1] However, utilitarians – notably Effective Altruists [2] – would make the opposite argument: what matters is the impact that you make with the dollars you donate (both in amount and allocation). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite [2] https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/
- ebg13 6y ago
  Impact is important, of course, but making an impact when you have everything is not difficult. Things that are not difficult are not impressive.
  - progman32 6y ago
    Ease is not always related to importance. Edit: I misread, by bad.
    - ebg13 6y ago
      Op specifically used the word "unimpressive", not "unimportant".
  - vasco 6y ago
    He did not start with everything.
    - ebg13 6y ago
      That's wonderful and not relevant to whether giving away an amount that still leaves you with everything is impressive.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
FriendlyNormie 6y ago
Shut up you lying Jew. Everyone knows Jews are the most greedy people on earth. Why did you even bring up Jews? Chuck Feeney is Irish. Gas yourself you disgusting kike.
aperrien 6y ago
I don't think that seeking to be starving and on the street should be the ultimate end goal of philanthropy. I much prefer to limit my generosity via the First Rule of Rescue: be careful not give away so much that now you need charity yourself.
7402 6y ago
Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one. On an ascending level, they are as follows: 8. When donations are given grudgingly. 7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully. 6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked. 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked. 4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor still doesn't know the specific identity of the recipient. 3. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the recipient is unaware of the source. 2. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in this category. 1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others. [0] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charitable-giving https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charita...
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  Muslims also have a similar tier system of giving charity, but because Islam mandates charity from its followers at a fixed rate (a flat income tax for charity), it places the "communal funds" very low in the totem pole. Actually the Prophet Muhammad said a similar thing to what Feeney has said here about wanting to give charity while alive rather than after his death: > A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Which charity is the most superior in reward?" He replied, "The charity which you practice while you are healthy, niggardly and afraid of poverty and wish to become wealthy. Do not delay it to the time of approaching death and then say, 'Give so much to such and such, and so much to such and such.' And it has already belonged to such and such (as it is too late)." https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500 https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500
  - acqq 6y ago
    I guess Jewish "tzedakah" and Arabian "zakat" have anyway both the same linguistic root, both being Semitic languages and everything related happening in the same small part of the world (if the word itself has some other origins).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
BeetleB 6y ago
> but we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself. The value of money is nonlinear. There are other perspectives on this. Often, the very poor person does not hope he will ever get out of poverty, and that makes it much easier to have a sharing/charitable mindset. Keeping the $25 will help him for a few days, after which he'll be broke again and no better off. Giving it away will have the same end result, albeit a few days earlier - but it will be a charitable act he'll feel good about for life, and may also make a friend. The person for whom it is most difficult to give is usually the one at the edge of poverty. If he keeps the money, he has a chance he'll escape the cycle of poverty. If he gives it away, he'll never change his station in life. For this somewhat wealthier person, that $25 has a lot more value (As an aside, I'm not sure I would respect him much if he gave it away). To paraphrase from a popular movie: Put people in a pit with no hope of escape and what you get is fairly boring. But give them a glimmer of hope that they can escape, and then watch how they will destroy one another in their attempts to get out. Charity is generally cheap for those who have nothing: They know they are not losing much when they give it away.
gfxgirl 6y ago
I could easily retire on $2M so I think it wouldn't be that hard to give away $1998M if I get to keep $2M. It's not like $2M is poor, given it's post tax it's like being able to live on a salary of $75k a year for 40yrs and, he likely owns a house already (or is that part of the $2M, though even if it is he can sell it and live off the money). I'm not trying to downplay him in anyway. I'm just saying that $2M in the bank is still an extremely comfortable life so there is not much hardship to be had in giving up everything over that. Also, as for donating anonymously vs non-anonymously I do it non-anonymously as trying to add social proof that you should donate. The more it appears normal to donate the more people will donate, or so I believe. If I could do that anonymously I would but people read me (my blog or other things), they don't read anon's blog/tweets, whatever.
yossarian1408 6y ago
Not related to the article, however the third paragraph of your comment touches on a controversial idea, so I'll add another perspective. On the idea of sacrifice as virtuous. Sacrifice is only compatible with selfishness. This is because for an action to be a sacrifice, there is two criteria in which it must meet. The first criteria are that the individual must love themselves. She who has no value of her own life, cannot sacrifice it, just as she could not sacrifice a rock found in a cave. Vice versa, an individual which holds her own life as immensely valuable, is able to sacrifice it for an ideal, however this leads to the second criterion. The second criteria are that the individual must hold no value in the ideal or cause in which they contribute towards. This is because if you hold something as valuable, and you give it up for something of equal or greater value, you are not sacrificing, but rather trading. Each trade has its own currency, and what that is I leave to the reader to investigate, but sacrifice is only possible for the woman that loves herself and does not hold any value in the ideal in which she sacrifices herself for. Thus, if you do see virtue in sacrifice, it is only possible because of selfishness, and this is problematic.
- mleonhard 6y ago
  Trades are not all selfish. A person trades selfishly if they are trying to get some benefit for themselves. Trying to benefit only other people is not selfish. Every rational choice is made based on some personal values. A person with unselfish personal values can take action on those values. Do you think their action occurs because of their selfishness? Are all rational actions selfish? I think that is not a useful way to think.
  - yossarian1408 6y ago
    The comment I was replying to mentioned it being noble for a woman to starve herself to give $25 to a stranger. I disagree, and I pointed out the contradiction of praising sacrifice while disparaging self-interest, when the two are not possible without each other. If you disagree with that, I would be interested in hearing why. Trades are not all selfish. I never made the point that trades are inherently selfish, only that in some trades monetary gain is not the only form of currency. Are all rational actions selfish? Yes. You state in your second paragraph that "Every rational choice is made based on some personal values". I agree. If you act on your own personal values, this is selfish. And as all rational choice must be in service of personal values, then all rational action is selfish. I'm very open to the idea that I'm wrong on all of this, but I can not see how, so I thank you for engaging with my comment.
ROARosen 6y ago
>we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself While it is truly selfless, I'm not sure what is __really__ harder; for a person living a multi-billion-dollar lifestyle to change to a million-dollar lifestyle, or someone who is used to living on the penny, to give away most of what they have....
baddox 6y ago
This whole idea kinda loops back on itself and I wonder if wanting to donate your wealth in order to achieve “higher rungs” isn’t itself a perverse incentive than a rung system ought to penalize!
cmonnow 6y ago
Charity in Hinduism falls under 3 modes, as with pretty much everything else in Hinduism - Tamas, Rajas & Sattva Tamas - given at wrong place/time, to wrong (unworthy) person, without respect/decency, with contempt. Rajas - given with reluctance, expecting return (either from recipient, or praise) Sattva - given at right time/place, to right (worthy) person, with humility, without expectation of return. Note that while others religions mainly dwell on not expecting return and anonymity, Hinduism stresses not expecting return but does not stress anonymity as much as it stresses finding the right patra (bowl) i.e. right recipient. Donating $100 to a poor person, who also happens to be wicked, and/or will definitely spend it on vices, is actually a bad donation, because it causes more harm to the recipient and society, than good. Also, timing - a litre of blood donated to a save a life in urgent time, is worth more than a litre of blood spilled in war to gain territory. Also, place - a donation done in holy land or temple is worth more than a donation from a local philanthropy club. Also, the reward for donation is gaining goodwill in the heart of Bhagavan (God). And He dishes out goodwill proportional to the 'effort' rather than 'amount' - a $100 wage earner donating $10 is judged the same as $100 million donated by a billionaire. Source : Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 17, verses 20,21,22
simula67 6y ago
Is Chuck Feeney Jewish?
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Feeney is a pretty dang irish surname "This is an anglicized form of an Olde Gaelic name O Fiannaidh - composed of the elements 'O' meaning a 'grandson (of)' or 'male descendant' and 'Fianna' - a 'soldier'. The main O Fiannaidh clan was located in the parish of Easkey, Co. Sligo."
pood 6y ago
Curb your enthusiasm — the anonymous donor.
piokoch 6y ago
Very true... And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.” Luke 21:1-4
podgaj 6y ago
Why is it good that we let one, unelected man decide how wealth is distributed in the community? If we had taxed him at the rate we have taxed people in the 40's and 50's maybe there would not be such a need for all these "philanthropists" to give "their" money away. And give me a break, he is NOT broke. I live on 20K a year and I do not even think I am broke. When he is living like St. Francis of Assisi let me know.
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
Although the 'Billions' Chuck Feeney gave away would likely be the focus of his story, his greatest achievement IMO is creating the 'actionable model for philanthropy' which others have since followed creating a much larger impact from what was done through his wealth alone. >this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself I absolutely agree and think of this often when I see the philanthropy figures published each year when the top Billionaires have donated <0.2% of their wealth where as there are individuals like this gentleman[1] who donates 80% of his earnings from road side tea stall to educate underprivileged children[1]. [1]https://yourstory.com/socialstory/2019/11/tea-seller-kanpur-vvs-laxman-free-education-children https://yourstory.com/socialstory/2019/11/tea-seller-kanpur-...

jacquesm 6y ago

That's a good point. And 'broke' isn't 100% broke just yet, he's not going to have to sleep under a bridge. But he's broke enough that the wrong accident can put him on the far side of the line easily enough. Obviously this goes for many people but they tend to end up in that situation by accident, not by design and as an example to other billionaires he's pretty impressive. Try imagining Larry Ellison doing this.

compsciphd 6y ago
I'd presume (perhaps incorrectly, so perhaps hope), that he's pretty insured up to avoid that fate.
maximente 6y ago
it's really hard to imagine someone at age 89, with 2 social security incomes and $2M, who is apparently more frugal than most technology workers, being one "wrong accident" away from "the far side of the line easily enough". an 80% loss of that $2M cash leaves him with a paltry $400K which, assuming a rate of return == inflation, is 10 years of $40K/yr spending, to say nothing of 2x SS income. people's idea of "being broke" is just ridiculous.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Healthcare in the United States is perfectly designed to take your every last penny in the last 6 months of your life. If Chuck Feeney isn't actually broke today, there is a fair chance that he will be on his death bed.
  - woobar 6y ago
    At his age healthcare is covered by taxpayers, just like in most other countries.
    - rhino369 6y ago
      Nursing homes are only covered longterm if you are destitute. Good places will take your assets and use them all up until it’s gone then apply for Medicaid. Won’t pay for personal in-home nurses either. But 2 million should buy him plenty of elder care. I would have kept 10 million just in case.
      - garmaine 6y ago
        Nursing home is not “healthcare.”
        xxpor 6y ago
        If you don't go, you die. How is that not?
  - imtringued 6y ago
    >If Chuck Feeney isn't actually broke today, there is a fair chance that he will be on his death bed. Aren't you forgetting that that he already "lost" the vast majority of his wealth? If he actually cared about the money he would have given it to his children. If he loses his last $2 million on healthcare he probably wouldn't care.
  - C4stor 6y ago
    He'll never be "broke", because with his money he acquired something way more long lasting than cash, which is social acquaintances. Philanthropy has been used to this exact end throughout history, and is still today. So of course his billionnaires friends will bail him out in the highly improbable event he should really need the money. The level of networking he reached means he doesn't need to spend a dollar until his last breath if he so wished.
vecinu 6y ago
Wouldn't Chuck just receive donations from the thousands of people he personally knew and helped? I doubt people would let him go broke under any scenario... the man spent time with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
- compiler-guy 6y ago
  Maybe. But maybe not. He doesn't know, and we don't know. And therefore he is taking a big risk.

gridlockd 6y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7PHIh2pqh0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7PHIh2pqh0

gringoDan 6y ago

> we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself Is it? This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice / self-deprivation is what matters. [1] However, utilitarians – notably Effective Altruists [2] – would make the opposite argument: what matters is the impact that you make with the dollars you donate (both in amount and allocation). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_the_widow%27s_mite [2] https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/

ebg13 6y ago
Impact is important, of course, but making an impact when you have everything is not difficult. Things that are not difficult are not impressive.
- progman32 6y ago
  Ease is not always related to importance. Edit: I misread, by bad.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    Op specifically used the word "unimpressive", not "unimportant".
- vasco 6y ago
  He did not start with everything.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    That's wonderful and not relevant to whether giving away an amount that still leaves you with everything is impressive.
    - sokoloff 6y ago

FriendlyNormie 6y ago

Shut up you lying Jew. Everyone knows Jews are the most greedy people on earth. Why did you even bring up Jews? Chuck Feeney is Irish. Gas yourself you disgusting kike.

aperrien 6y ago

I don't think that seeking to be starving and on the street should be the ultimate end goal of philanthropy. I much prefer to limit my generosity via the First Rule of Rescue: be careful not give away so much that now you need charity yourself.

7402 6y ago

Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one. On an ascending level, they are as follows: 8. When donations are given grudgingly. 7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully. 6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked. 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked. 4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor still doesn't know the specific identity of the recipient. 3. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the recipient is unaware of the source. 2. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in this category. 1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others. [0] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charitable-giving https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charita...

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
Muslims also have a similar tier system of giving charity, but because Islam mandates charity from its followers at a fixed rate (a flat income tax for charity), it places the "communal funds" very low in the totem pole. Actually the Prophet Muhammad said a similar thing to what Feeney has said here about wanting to give charity while alive rather than after his death: > A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Which charity is the most superior in reward?" He replied, "The charity which you practice while you are healthy, niggardly and afraid of poverty and wish to become wealthy. Do not delay it to the time of approaching death and then say, 'Give so much to such and such, and so much to such and such.' And it has already belonged to such and such (as it is too late)." https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500 https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500
- acqq 6y ago
  I guess Jewish "tzedakah" and Arabian "zakat" have anyway both the same linguistic root, both being Semitic languages and everything related happening in the same small part of the world (if the word itself has some other origins).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

BeetleB 6y ago

> but we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself. The value of money is nonlinear. There are other perspectives on this. Often, the very poor person does not hope he will ever get out of poverty, and that makes it much easier to have a sharing/charitable mindset. Keeping the $25 will help him for a few days, after which he'll be broke again and no better off. Giving it away will have the same end result, albeit a few days earlier - but it will be a charitable act he'll feel good about for life, and may also make a friend. The person for whom it is most difficult to give is usually the one at the edge of poverty. If he keeps the money, he has a chance he'll escape the cycle of poverty. If he gives it away, he'll never change his station in life. For this somewhat wealthier person, that $25 has a lot more value (As an aside, I'm not sure I would respect him much if he gave it away). To paraphrase from a popular movie: Put people in a pit with no hope of escape and what you get is fairly boring. But give them a glimmer of hope that they can escape, and then watch how they will destroy one another in their attempts to get out. Charity is generally cheap for those who have nothing: They know they are not losing much when they give it away.

gfxgirl 6y ago

I could easily retire on $2M so I think it wouldn't be that hard to give away $1998M if I get to keep $2M. It's not like $2M is poor, given it's post tax it's like being able to live on a salary of $75k a year for 40yrs and, he likely owns a house already (or is that part of the $2M, though even if it is he can sell it and live off the money). I'm not trying to downplay him in anyway. I'm just saying that $2M in the bank is still an extremely comfortable life so there is not much hardship to be had in giving up everything over that. Also, as for donating anonymously vs non-anonymously I do it non-anonymously as trying to add social proof that you should donate. The more it appears normal to donate the more people will donate, or so I believe. If I could do that anonymously I would but people read me (my blog or other things), they don't read anon's blog/tweets, whatever.

yossarian1408 6y ago

Not related to the article, however the third paragraph of your comment touches on a controversial idea, so I'll add another perspective. On the idea of sacrifice as virtuous. Sacrifice is only compatible with selfishness. This is because for an action to be a sacrifice, there is two criteria in which it must meet. The first criteria are that the individual must love themselves. She who has no value of her own life, cannot sacrifice it, just as she could not sacrifice a rock found in a cave. Vice versa, an individual which holds her own life as immensely valuable, is able to sacrifice it for an ideal, however this leads to the second criterion. The second criteria are that the individual must hold no value in the ideal or cause in which they contribute towards. This is because if you hold something as valuable, and you give it up for something of equal or greater value, you are not sacrificing, but rather trading. Each trade has its own currency, and what that is I leave to the reader to investigate, but sacrifice is only possible for the woman that loves herself and does not hold any value in the ideal in which she sacrifices herself for. Thus, if you do see virtue in sacrifice, it is only possible because of selfishness, and this is problematic.

mleonhard 6y ago
Trades are not all selfish. A person trades selfishly if they are trying to get some benefit for themselves. Trying to benefit only other people is not selfish. Every rational choice is made based on some personal values. A person with unselfish personal values can take action on those values. Do you think their action occurs because of their selfishness? Are all rational actions selfish? I think that is not a useful way to think.
- yossarian1408 6y ago
  The comment I was replying to mentioned it being noble for a woman to starve herself to give $25 to a stranger. I disagree, and I pointed out the contradiction of praising sacrifice while disparaging self-interest, when the two are not possible without each other. If you disagree with that, I would be interested in hearing why. Trades are not all selfish. I never made the point that trades are inherently selfish, only that in some trades monetary gain is not the only form of currency. Are all rational actions selfish? Yes. You state in your second paragraph that "Every rational choice is made based on some personal values". I agree. If you act on your own personal values, this is selfish. And as all rational choice must be in service of personal values, then all rational action is selfish. I'm very open to the idea that I'm wrong on all of this, but I can not see how, so I thank you for engaging with my comment.

ROARosen 6y ago

>we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself While it is truly selfless, I'm not sure what is __really__ harder; for a person living a multi-billion-dollar lifestyle to change to a million-dollar lifestyle, or someone who is used to living on the penny, to give away most of what they have....

baddox 6y ago

This whole idea kinda loops back on itself and I wonder if wanting to donate your wealth in order to achieve “higher rungs” isn’t itself a perverse incentive than a rung system ought to penalize!

cmonnow 6y ago

Charity in Hinduism falls under 3 modes, as with pretty much everything else in Hinduism - Tamas, Rajas & Sattva Tamas - given at wrong place/time, to wrong (unworthy) person, without respect/decency, with contempt. Rajas - given with reluctance, expecting return (either from recipient, or praise) Sattva - given at right time/place, to right (worthy) person, with humility, without expectation of return. Note that while others religions mainly dwell on not expecting return and anonymity, Hinduism stresses not expecting return but does not stress anonymity as much as it stresses finding the right patra (bowl) i.e. right recipient. Donating $100 to a poor person, who also happens to be wicked, and/or will definitely spend it on vices, is actually a bad donation, because it causes more harm to the recipient and society, than good. Also, timing - a litre of blood donated to a save a life in urgent time, is worth more than a litre of blood spilled in war to gain territory. Also, place - a donation done in holy land or temple is worth more than a donation from a local philanthropy club. Also, the reward for donation is gaining goodwill in the heart of Bhagavan (God). And He dishes out goodwill proportional to the 'effort' rather than 'amount' - a $100 wage earner donating $10 is judged the same as $100 million donated by a billionaire. Source : Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 17, verses 20,21,22

simula67 6y ago

Is Chuck Feeney Jewish?

blaser-waffle 6y ago
Feeney is a pretty dang irish surname "This is an anglicized form of an Olde Gaelic name O Fiannaidh - composed of the elements 'O' meaning a 'grandson (of)' or 'male descendant' and 'Fianna' - a 'soldier'. The main O Fiannaidh clan was located in the parish of Easkey, Co. Sligo."

pood 6y ago

Curb your enthusiasm — the anonymous donor.

piokoch 6y ago

Very true... And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.” Luke 21:1-4

podgaj 6y ago

Why is it good that we let one, unelected man decide how wealth is distributed in the community? If we had taxed him at the rate we have taxed people in the 40's and 50's maybe there would not be such a need for all these "philanthropists" to give "their" money away. And give me a break, he is NOT broke. I live on 20K a year and I do not even think I am broke. When he is living like St. Francis of Assisi let me know.

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

Although the 'Billions' Chuck Feeney gave away would likely be the focus of his story, his greatest achievement IMO is creating the 'actionable model for philanthropy' which others have since followed creating a much larger impact from what was done through his wealth alone. >this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself I absolutely agree and think of this often when I see the philanthropy figures published each year when the top Billionaires have donated <0.2% of their wealth where as there are individuals like this gentleman[1] who donates 80% of his earnings from road side tea stall to educate underprivileged children[1]. [1]https://yourstory.com/socialstory/2019/11/tea-seller-kanpur-vvs-laxman-free-education-children https://yourstory.com/socialstory/2019/11/tea-seller-kanpur-...