NationStates Jolt Archive

"Oh, he's just giving to make himself look good."

"McDonald's is only doing the Ronald McDonald House 'cause Wendy's did theirs first."

"She doesn't care about the kids. She's just after the press coverage."

Comments like these trail every single influential celebrity, corporate leader, politician, what-have-you with money that ever donates to a charity. Most of us can manage to feed our families, clothe our families, provide shelter, and live comfortably, yet never give to charities, and those that do are ignored at best. Meanwhile, when those that have plenty of excess money give to charities, all we can do is point out faults, whine, moan, and complain about them. Why is it that when one of us middle-classers give money, it's not even noted, but when those who can easily give the kind of money that truly matters do so, they're considered reprehensible? I just don't understand it.

One word: envy.

"Oh, he's just giving to make himself look good."

"McDonald's is only doing the Ronald McDonald House 'cause Wendy's did theirs first."

"She doesn't care about the kids. She's just after the press coverage."

Comments like these trail every single influential celebrity, corporate leader, politician, what-have-you with money that ever donates to a charity. Most of us can manage to feed our families, clothe our families, provide shelter, and live comfortably, yet never give to charities, and those that do are ignored at best. Meanwhile, when those that have plenty of excess money give to charities, all we can do is point out faults, whine, moan, and complain about them. Why is it that when one of us middle-classers give money, it's not even noted, but when those who can easily give the kind of money that truly matters do so, they're considered reprehensible? I just don't understand it.

It's because they publicize it. If they donate anonymously it's one thing. But when they scream it from the roof tops, they probably only did it to gain positive press. Don't get me wrong it is great when anyone gives charitably. But the constant self back patting is just tacky.

It comes with the territory of charity. Every homeless shelter Ive ever seen and most of the soup lines and indeed many of the international organisations which try to feed those in areas of famine are a part of what many people on NS consider to be the most despised and evil institutions on the planet. Organised religions. Apparantly being charitable is now akin to a disease which must be eradicated via peer pressure.

Apparantly being charitable is now akin to a disease which must be eradicated via peer pressure.

Ironically the case can be made that charity has in fact done the third world more harm than good. Many local economies and cultures have been completely wrecked by it,
Sure, we western people would consider those tribe systems primitive, inefficient and not fitting the grand scheme of global trade - but they did work.

Ironically the case can be made that charity has in fact done the third world more harm than good. Many local economies and cultures have been completely wrecked by it,
Sure, we western people would consider those tribe systems primitive, inefficient and not fitting the grand scheme of global trade - but they did work.

Aye, that they did. However, I would argue that charity itself was not at fault: it was the irresponsible way it was given that was at fault. If done carefully, I suspect it could have been much more benificial.

Because the absolute is the selfless act, and charity if motivated by selfishness is seen as less than ideal, even though it achieves identical utility.

Clearly then, we evaluate charity on some standard seperate from utility.

But do we in all cases? Can the gates foundation really be criticized for making its work public? Can Warren Buffet for announcing his contribution at a press conference?

/end posting under the influence dialectic

Ironically the case can be made that charity has in fact done the third world more harm than good. Many local economies and cultures have been completely wrecked by it,
Sure, we western people would consider those tribe systems primitive, inefficient and not fitting the grand scheme of global trade - but they did work.
It was not usually charity that was the real problem. The real problems were things like the conquistadors, or the 19th-century imperialist European forces taking over Africa, and in general foreign powers trying to take the country over.

For example, in the Rio de Plata region of what is now Argentina, Jesuit missionaries entered the area in the 16th and 17th centuries and converted most of the locals. However, they kept most of their native culture, dress, language, and truth be told, religion to some degree. This lasted for about two centuries, until the mid-18th century, when Spain forced the Jesuits to leave. Were it not for those missionaries, Portuguese slave traders from neighboring Brazil would long ago have carted all of those people off to work and die on plantations.

So charity is often misguided, and has unintended negative side effects, but it's usually better than nothing.

Ironically the case can be made that charity has in fact done the third world more harm than good. Many local economies and cultures have been completely wrecked by it,
Sure, we western people would consider those tribe systems primitive, inefficient and not fitting the grand scheme of global trade - but they did work.

I hardly consider the tribes at all day-to-day to be perfectly frank. In light of the information youve provided about their cultures and economies somebody better reel Bono and Bill Gates back in from Africa before they do the kind of harm that can never be repaired. My hypothesis about charities now being considered evil holds up so far.

Aye, that they did. However, I would argue that charity itself was not at fault: it was the irresponsible way it was given that was at fault. If done carefully, I suspect it could have been much more benificial.


I will change my theory now from "Charity is Evil " to "Charitable people are blind destroyers of innocent cultures"

I tend to get annoyed with people who use charity to keep from actually helping any. I volunteer for a charity organization in the spring and I call people on our list that say they want to help, and what I hear is "I wrote you a check a year ago, what did you do with that money?" when I explain to them that our organization helped Katrina survivors and still are out helping them, they get angry. We are a disaster relief organization, we go where there has been a disaster. We were on the scene before FEMA (almost everyone else was too that time, but usually we are there first....you know when FEMA doesn't screw up so badly).

I do get annoyed when I hear just about anyone talking about "how much I donated" because well, anyone can write a check, if you are bragging about that I feel like you are doing it to look good and helping for the wrong reason.

but, I am judgemental and rude, and bad, and evil.

People want to attack famous people for everything they do. That and people in this country don't like to believe that causes last longer than what they hear on the news. What? Hurricane Katrina's still affecting New Orleans? That's impossible; they just said the Saints played there. New Orleans is fine now. People get bored and cynical and almost look for excuses not to give to charity.

There's that and there's the desire to tear down the good name of famous people. Bill Gates donates to charity? He's an evil corporate giant, so he must just be doing it to make himself look good. Therefore, he's doubly selfish. Warren Buffett's giving a bunch of money to charity? He just wants to be remembered as a philanthropist and not as a businessman. John D. Rockefeller did the same thing, and he was still an evil corporate bastard. Angelina Jolie takes care of third-world orphans? Wrong, wrong, wrong. For whatever reason, even she catches hell for helping kids. Children, for the love of Pete. I guess she should just have her own kids and further the white race or something like that instead of helping people who actually need it. (Note - this is not to imply that cynical Americans are racist or anything, but for all I know, propagating the white race or having white children is still a big deal to a lot of people here.)

the word isnt hypocritical, its CYNICAL.

we are so used to rich people getting some huge benefit from their charity work that we assume that that is the motivation for ALL rich people to give to charity.

it helps us keep our sanity when we find out that some rich guys foundation loaned the family back millions of dollars in low interest loans. no sense getting blindsided by the all too human nature of the very rich.

"Oh, he's just giving to make himself look good."

"McDonald's is only doing the Ronald McDonald House 'cause Wendy's did theirs first."

"She doesn't care about the kids. She's just after the press coverage."

Comments like these trail every single influential celebrity, corporate leader, politician, what-have-you with money that ever donates to a charity. Most of us can manage to feed our families, clothe our families, provide shelter, and live comfortably, yet never give to charities, and those that do are ignored at best. Meanwhile, when those that have plenty of excess money give to charities, all we can do is point out faults, whine, moan, and complain about them. Why is it that when one of us middle-classers give money, it's not even noted, but when those who can easily give the kind of money that truly matters do so, they're considered reprehensible? I just don't understand it.

Well, I won't say "we" because I don't criticize people for doing things "just to look good" because I'm seldom in a position to make that call.

I do criticize people for setting up philanthropic works that do little to alleviate the problems that those people are creating in spades. Like Phillip-Moriss "We Card" program.

But when a Celebrity goes to a third-world country to raise awareness and money I don't complain.

I think people who do make that criticism are trying to mask their own uncharitable nature. Seeing other people do good almost makes them face up to how little good they are doing themselves. The anti-celebrity thing is big among conservatives, who hate social programs which they see as stealing from them. They claim that they're all for private charity, but that's just a cop out because even very good charities like God's Love We Deliver, or the Salvation Army can't compete with even very inefficient government programs like WIC or Food Stamps. If you favor helping people then you favor doing it right.

"Oh, he's just giving to make himself look good."

"McDonald's is only doing the Ronald McDonald House 'cause Wendy's did theirs first."

"She doesn't care about the kids. She's just after the press coverage."

Comments like these trail every single influential celebrity, corporate leader, politician, what-have-you with money that ever donates to a charity. Most of us can manage to feed our families, clothe our families, provide shelter, and live comfortably, yet never give to charities, and those that do are ignored at best. Meanwhile, when those that have plenty of excess money give to charities, all we can do is point out faults, whine, moan, and complain about them. Why is it that when one of us middle-classers give money, it's not even noted, but when those who can easily give the kind of money that truly matters do so, they're considered reprehensible? I just don't understand it.

I'm glad I'm not famous. When I help someone out I like to do it in such a way that no one (except perhaps for the person I'm helping) knows I did it.

I think people would be alot happier if they would live their own lives and stop obsessing about the lives of 'celebrities'. I think it exceedingly foolish to rush to judgement upon people you don't even know.

Honestly, I don't give a damn why they donate.

If they help people for selfish reasons, by all means let them help and be happy about it!

It's because they publicize it. If they donate anonymously it's one thing. But when they scream it from the roof tops, they probably only did it to gain positive press. Don't get me wrong it is great when anyone gives charitably. But the constant self back patting is just tacky.

But when celebrities do something other people do it. That's why Pepsi and Coke paid hundreds of millions of dollars to Britney Spears and Christina Aguiliara. Why isn't anyone griping "They don't like carbonated cola beverages. They're just doing it for the money."

If you were the benificiary of one of these charities and you knew that the charity brought in several million more because of a well publicized function by a celebrity, or far less, and offered you far less help, because the celebrity humbly kept their donations anonymous?

In the case of corporations doing charitable works as good PR, well yes, it's always that. Their shareholders will sue them if they do good works without a financial benifit. However, it is retarded to criticize a corporation for doing good works for PR purposes. If you do, then those works won't get done at all. You should only criticize them when the good works they do for PR purposes don't offset the damage that they cause. e.g. a gold mining operation that poisoned the groundwater with their cyanide pools setting up a small hatchery in a national park.

It's because they publicize it. If they donate anonymously it's one thing. But when they scream it from the roof tops, they probably only did it to gain positive press. Don't get me wrong it is great when anyone gives charitably. But the constant self back patting is just tacky.Maybe they publicize it because they think more people should give to that particular charity..? You know, propagate their cause.

And I think I feel the same way you do: I think it's great they give, but for some reason I feel it's tacky to make a big deal about it. I wish I could change. Brain vs heart. A bitch. *sigh*

Any money put towards helping those who need it is great. The intention or motivation behind it isn't relevant in it's usefulness and it's value.

However, intent plays a huge part in my moral judgement of a person, and is the main feature of my ethics. So, however great donating millions of money is, whether for publicity of whatever, if they did it for their own good, they didn't do a morally good act in my eyes and don't get any of my respect because their intention is more showing about their character than the act.

I think a main thing is that they still manage to live in ridiculous luxury - so they could always donate a hell of a lot more, if they truly cared, and still be very rich. But they don't.

Well a few do, but a lot don't...