You Want To Be A Philanthropist?

Philanthropy is a universally admired concept, but it is not a dead concept. As the world changes, so do the standards of giving. The inherent good of altruism doesn’t exempt it from review and fine-tuning. In fact, the importance of such an idea demands a closer look and exploration into its efficiency. After all, what use is a dollar given when it isn’t exactly the same dollar received? Where is money best spent to ensure that its altruistic quality is maximized? The Huffington Post followed Peter Singer of Princeton University to learn how those wishing to contribute can do so most effectively—that is, with the greatest impact.

The first postulate is a sense of moral urgency—that the necessary always precedes (is prioritized higher than) the decorative. Singer vehemently denounces gift-giving when it helps ancillary and superfluous structures of a community instead of tending to more pressing global matters. Local art museums, he says, are far less deserving of attention than humans starving and living in deprived conditions. Raising the standard of living in one area is not as important as supplying a standard of living in another. Very often philanthropy only reaches a narrow scale, and in some ways helps the very people who donate. Imagine an executive writing a check to prop up a museum of history located in his own city. There seems to be less than maximized efficiency as to his donation. Leah Hunt-Hendrix, writing for the post, has her own critique of Singer’s enthusiasm. While his concern for underprivileged areas is without question commendable, it fails to address the sources of ongoing problems. The author demands that attention be given to the larger issues at play such as the socio-political and economic structures that impede the alleviation of such problems. Attacking the base of a fire best guarantees quashing it.

Although Open Philosophy applied a statistic-heavy, empirical approach to solving questions of global need, its research remains superficially palliative. It underscores the generous contributions from big countries/institutions to developing nations, but neglects to account for the far larger amount taken out of the nations. The fact provided: “though rich countries give aid to poorer countries on the order of around $130 billion, they are simultaneously taking about $900 billion dollars out of poor countries each year through trade,” and the exploitation of natural resources for domestic corporate needs. One can see how true philanthropy is rare in a world that gives back only portions of what it takes. One answer is the donation of time instead of money. As people contribute themselves to causes, chances for social reform grow greater. Money is easily lost in the back-and-forth of transnational exchange, but time direct and absolute. Hunt-Hendrix ends her review by calling on the people of a democratic nation to involve themselves more in deciding where money is spent. “Funding social movements empowers communities to fight for their own needs, growing our society’s democratic forces.”

See Hunt-Hendrix’s extended editorial here.

from Gary Malhotra’s Philanthropy Website http://ift.tt/1GYXzAf
via IFTTT

from WordPress http://ift.tt/1E29Cuu
via IFTTT