Charitable giving- Money getting to the right places, but for the wrong reasons
Hey Guys, wondering what you are thinking,
In the past few decades, charitable giving has become extremely popularised in the pop culture world by celebrities and, more recently, people trying to achieve social admiration. Do you think it is justifiable to be solely giving and promoting good charitable causes just to look good, as long as the money is reaching the right places? Or do you think that the popularity of charitable giving is simply another fad that could dwindle once famous people who are only in it for the notoriety stop giving it their notice? Although there are people who are doing charity work for good reason, is it worth it to be appeasing those who are doing charity work for selfish causes so long as it brings in well needed funds?
Tags: causes, celebrities, charitable, charity, giving
Views: 13
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alex Darby on -
I think you have to look at what the word justifiable means here.
First, for the individuals (i.e. the celebrities who are giving the money) I think it's justifiable. From their point of view, they are only giving money to increase their popularity. What's morally reprehensible about this? I don't think you can say that it's unequivocally wrong to give money to make yourself more famous, especially if you're a celebrity - I would argue that it comes in the job description.
Having said that, I do think that it characterizes these kinds of people as soulless and very unpleasant; again though, I don't think that can be said to be something wrong.
From the point of view of, say, a charity that embraces celebrity donors because it raises the profile of the charity I don't think it's not justifiable. The means of achieving the ends here is not something wrong - they're not manipulating the celebrities or anything like that. The people who are manipulating the celebrities (to a degree, obviously it is the fault of the celebrities as well) are the press. They have created this chic aura of giving to charity. The thing is though, that I think they've only done this with the good intention of charities having more money!
So, my overall view would be that it is justifiable and no-one's in the wrong; it's just the celebrities' solipsistic behaviour.
Yes/No?
-
Permalink Reply by Live Futures on -
Hi April,
You should check out See The Difference, they are a charity that track the impact that charitable contributions have on the receivers and tell you exactly where your money goes!http://www.facebook.com/seethedifference.org
I hope this will give you a little hope!
x
-
Permalink Reply by Azaan Akbar on -
To be honest, April - I totally agree with you. It's the same with companies, businesses and just general people.
Charity has become (or is/was) such a thing that the real problem nobody cares about. There are exceptions, few and far between, but the general thing is nobody really giving a sh...damn. You drop in a few quid here and there and apparently your consience is all good. Celebrities are worse - the higher a celebrity gives, the more revered they become amongst their fans and those non-celebrities (as I call them) such as Katie Price or never give huge amounts of money. The same with business - ''we gave x amount of money to this cause, come to us, we're good.'' To be honest, I feel sad. Hey, maybe I don't do enough, but it's not me who's meant to - it's the people with the power who should make the difference, not just do it for the credibility.
-
Permalink Reply by Janaki Bhayani on -
Giving money to charity for selfish reasons doesn't change the fact that the charity is getting funds which is what they need ..who is it hurting if money is given in this manner? The problem I have is celebrities rasing money like this gives the impression that throwing money at the devleoping world will solve all their problems which is clearly not the case? April- I also agree with you about how celebrities may help a cause for a while but then drop the cause when something else comes along...
-
Permalink Reply by Azaan Akbar on
-
On the contrary Janaki, I see no point in giving money if your intention isn't the same. Why save lives if you don't actually care about that life? And even more so - money shouldn't just be chucked at the problem - why don't these celebrities go down there and live their life?
-
Permalink Reply by April Williamson on -
I totally agree with you on that point as well. By encouraging people to blindly donate money, they often don't know what they are putting their money towards. We do seem to be trying to educate people to want to give money, but we are not telling them why they are doing so and how that money is being used. This definately raises questions as to whether money being raised does actually make it to the places being"advertised" to the public.
Also, as Azaan said, I can't seem to find it totally justifiable for peple to give towards a cause that they have no real interest in simply for social self-glorification. Is charitable giving not a ethical decision? By giving without having any heart in it would it not be aruguable that it is therefore not ethically sound?
-
Permalink Reply by Janaki Bhayani on
-
I don't agree with the 'intention' arguement ..the aid given for self-glorification isn't worth any less than the aid given selflessly. Humans have a huge sense of self-importance anbd a charity who exploits that will increase its funding. The bigger issue here is whether all the extra funding is being used in an effective way to help developing countries.
-
Permalink Reply by Azaan Akbar on
-
I see your point, but the arguement isn't completely intention. Chucking money at charities isn't the best solution - it's an old cliche, but it is true. Money could be getting to places and charities could benefit from the extra 'bread', but considering the amount of power and potential these 'celebs' hold, why not go down, and do things personally. For example, Prince William, a very, very long time ago, went to an underdeveloped countries and cleaned toilets for living. How does that help, you may ask? It doesn't directly but it a) gives him an insight into how they live, b) give those living in an underdeveloped state a continued hope and can allow this Prince with such power and potential to later go to that country and do things specific to help them out. Furthermore, on this example, you could argue Prince William did it to raise profile, but in any case - he still went down there and cleaned toilets, which is a lot more selfless than chucking money at it. There is no denial that giving millions of money is indeed selfless, but it is much better, considering their power and potential, to go out there and help them on a more personal basis.
-
Permalink Reply by April Williamson on
-
I completely agree with this, in the long run a more personal take on charitable giving gives for the longevity of help being given to that cause. Withcelebrity endorsements it can often be a passing fad, the real issure quickly being forgotten once the celeb has stopped publicising it so much.
-
Permalink Reply by Janaki Bhayani on
-
*and
-
Permalink Reply by April Williamson on
-
But what another point you could argue is although yes, the charity is gaining money, how does one know if they are giving to a cause which needs the most attention? By people giving blindly towards a cause which is getting the most publicity, how do they know where their money is actually going, or if there is another cause which is in much more dire need of funding? I guess thats a whole new discussion on its own though, how could we get smaller charities which are the most in need of funding equal publicity and funding? When charities begin to get really large, is there not a problem of money being more liable to go to waste than in a smaller chairty where even the smallest amount of cash is closely monitored to go towards the best possible use? Hmm that was a bit of an inquisition, feel free to regard some of those questions as rhetorical...
© 2012 Created by Live Futures.
Powered by
