Philanthropic Graffiti

Peter Singer says Jesus is wrong about charitable giving:

Give and tell: In defense of philanthropic graffiti, by Peter Singer, Project Syndicate: Jesus said that we should give alms in private rather than when others are watching. That fits with the commonsense idea that if people only do good in public, they may be motivated by a desire to gain a reputation for generosity. Perhaps when no one is looking, they are not generous at all.

That thought may lead us to disdain the kind of philanthropic graffiti that leads to donors' names being prominently displayed on concert halls, art museums, and college buildings. Often, names are stuck not only over the entire building, but also on as many constituent parts of it as fundraisers and architects can manage.

According to evolutionary psychologists, such displays of blatant benevolence are the human equivalent of the male peacock's tail. Just as the peacock signals his strength and fitness by displaying his enormous tail - a sheer waste of resources from a practical point of view - so costly public acts of benevolence signal to potential mates that one possesses enough resources to give so much away.

From an ethical perspective, however, should we care so much about the purity of the motive with which the gift was made? Surely, what matters is that something was given to a good cause. We may well look askance at a lavish new concert hall, but not because the donor's name is chiseled into the marble facade. Rather, we should question whether, in a world in which 25,000 impoverished children die unnecessarily every day, another concert hall is what the world needs.

A substantial body of current psychological research points against Jesus' advice. One of the most significant factors determining whether people give to charity is their beliefs about what others are doing. Those who make it known that they give to charity increase the likelihood that others will do the same. ...

We need to get over our reluctance to speak openly about the good we do. Silent giving will not change a culture that deems it sensible to spend all your money on yourself and your family, rather than to help those in greater need - even though helping others is likely to bring more fulfillment in the long run.

[I'm late for an appointment, so I'll leave any commentary to you...]

Comments

[Patricia Shannon]

Very true. Unless we are hermits with no contact with anybody else, and nobody aware of us, we are all role models to each other. As social creatures with relatively few instincts, the instinct or drive to emulate the ways of our society are necessary for our survival.

[anne]

"We need to get over our reluctance to speak openly about the good we do."

Huh?

When do we not advertise our generosity or supposed generosity? What is this essay actually about? I could dine out forever at this dress charity show or the other. Not that I have anything against advertising being generous, but we do so ceaselessly. What seems kind is not always feeling as though charity is demanded.

[robertdfeinman]

I need a rubber stamp which says "question assumptions".

Abolish Philanthropy

The assumption is that there is nothing wrong with amassing the kind of wealth that allows one to be a philanthropist. I disagree. To quote myself:
I distinguish philanthropy and charity. Charity is when you give $100 to the Red Cross, or the March of Dimes. Philanthropy is when you give $100 million to a foundation modestly named after yourself.

I make my case in the essay.

[anne]

Peter Singer is by the way wildly generous, but the essay is just not inspiring to me.

[Robinia]

um... any recognition whatever that a goodly portion of the funds "donated" by a philanthropist would otherwise--sans philanthropy-- accrue to the government as income tax? And, as taxable income, be utilized for the purposes democratically prioritized as most essential, rather than for the purposes the wealthy individual is most partial to (or to the charity that will most prominently display his name)?

The credit for philanthropy goes 100% to the philanthropist, not to the government that made it a Schedule A deduction, currently. And he thinks the philanthropists have to give themselves MORE credit?

[kthomas]

I wish people would leave Jesus out of the discussion. It tends to ruin any objective.

[Eric Dewey]

One benefit of public giving is that you have the opportunity to at least consider whether there is a quid pro quo - and whether the obvious ego-stroke is simply a mask for something more ominous.

One benefit of private giving, particularly charitable gifts of the type that Jesus was more likely speaking of, is that it does not shame the receiver of the gift. Many community charities decline to provide you with the name of the ultimate recipient of your gift for that reason.

I doubt that Jesus was much concerned about the reactions of people other than the giver and the recipient.

The purity of the motive remains important, because the money is not really the gift - the gift is the act of caring itself, and of sacrificing to some degree for the benefit of another, whether it is seen or not.

A "gift" that does not demonstrate real caring and the willingness to sacrifice is no gift at all, and in the mind of the giver is far more likely to be seen as a chit to be called upon at a later time.

Put another way, a gift that does not keep on giving is probably not a gift at all...

[Cynthia]

Not that I'm privy to the mind of Jesus (or any messiah, for that matter), but something tells me that he (or any messiah) wouldn't take too kindly to philanthropic givings going to plutocratic think tanks designed to think up more and more creative ways to keep money (and power) in the hands of the few.

[anne]

Cynthia:

"Not that I'm privy to the mind of Jesus...."

Gotta love the woman.

[anne]

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/d/dostoyevsky/d72b/chapter36.html

1879 - 1880

The Brothers Karamazov
By Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Translated by Constance Garnett

The Grand Inquisitor

"EVEN this must have a preface — that is, a literary preface," laughed Ivan, "and I am a poor hand at making one. You see, my action takes place in the sixteenth century, and at that time, as you probably learnt at school, it was customary in poetry to bring down heavenly powers on earth.... He comes on the scene in my poem, but He says nothing, only appears and passes on. Fifteen centuries have passed since He promised to come in His glory, fifteen centuries since His prophet wrote, 'Behold, I come quickly'; 'Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father,' as He Himself predicted on earth. But humanity awaits him with the same faith and with the same love. Oh, with greater faith, for it is fifteen centuries since man has ceased to see signs from heaven.

No signs from heaven come to-day
To add to what the heart doth say.

There was nothing left but faith in what the heart doth say. It is true there were many miracles in those days. There were saints who performed miraculous cures; some holy people, according to their biographies, were visited by the Queen of Heaven herself. But the devil did not slumber, and doubts were already arising among men of the truth of these miracles. And just then there appeared in the north of Germany a terrible new heresy. 'A huge star like to a torch' (that is, to a church) 'fell on the sources of the waters and they became bitter.' These heretics began blasphemously denying miracles. But those who remained faithful were all the more ardent in their faith. The tears of humanity rose up to Him as before, awaited His coming, loved Him, hoped for Him, yearned to suffer and die for Him as before. And so many ages mankind had prayed with faith and fervour, 'O Lord our God, hasten Thy coming'; so many ages called upon Him, that in His infinite mercy He deigned to come down to His servants. Before that day He had come down, He had visited some holy men, martyrs, and hermits, as is written in their lives. Among us, Tyutchev, with absolute faith in the truth of his words, bore witness that

Bearing the Cross, in slavish dress,
Weary and worn, the Heavenly King
Our mother, Russia, came to bless,
And through our land went wandering.

And that certainly was so, I assure you.

"And behold, He deigned to appear for a moment to the people, to the tortured, suffering people, sunk in iniquity, but loving Him like children. My story is laid in Spain, in Seville, in the most terrible time of the Inquisition, when fires were lighted every day to the glory of God, and 'in the splendid auto da fe the wicked heretics were burnt.' Oh, of course, this was not the coming in which He will appear, according to His promise, at the end of time in all His heavenly glory, and which will be sudden 'as lightning flashing from east to west.' No, He visited His children only for a moment, and there where the flames were crackling round the heretics. In His infinite mercy He came once more among men in that human shape in which He walked among men for thirty-three years fifteen centuries ago. He came down to the 'hot pavements' of the southern town in which on the day before almost a hundred heretics had, ad majorem gloriam Dei, been burnt by the cardinal, the Grand Inquisitor, in a magnificent auto da fe, in the presence of the king, the court, the knights, the cardinals, the most charming ladies of the court, and the whole population of Seville.

"He came softly, unobserved, and yet, strange to say, everyone recognised Him....

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

Yeah but just think of what it does to my ego every time I drive a date by the "Non Grata" Pavilion for the Recovery of Destitute Real Estate Speculators at Johns Hopkins Hopital.

They always say.... "Is that you, my big sugar daddy....?

and I look down with a humble little smile on my face and nod ever so gently...

Best regards,

Econolicious

[Noni Mausa]

I suppose we can divide philanthropic giving into two types: a pleasant, showy, heartwarming hobby, possibly of use to the recipient but not necessarily, and the spiritually potent placement of resources for the common good.

Both CAN do good to the recipients so far as I know, but only the second type gives credit to the giver. Merton:Love in fact is the spiritual life, and without it all the other exercises of the spirit, however lofty, are emptied of content and become mere illusions. The more lofty they are, the more dangerous the illusion.

Love, of course, means something much more then mere sentiment... Love mean an interior and spiritual identification with one's neighbor...

... good done to another as an object is of little or no spiritual value. Love takes one's neighbor as one's other self, and loves him with all the immense humility and discretion and reserve and reverence without which no one can presume to enter into the sanctuary of another's subjectivity.One question we might ask is-- philanthropy shines brightest in the gloomy shadows of poverty and deprivation. The most extremely wealthy persons, at least today, become so by (perhaps indirectly) impoverishing those below them. So is the philanthropy of the extremely wealthy a predictable side effect of the growth of the wealthy to these extreme sizes?

Noni

[Few on the Narrow Road]

"But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Matthew 6:3-4 NIV

Lord Jesus is right, but He is speaking to Christians, who are motivated to please God. Christians should go right on obeying Lord Jesus. However, Christians are only a small minority...

"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:14 NIV

Not much money is raised this way, because there are so few on the narrow road. To motivate the majority on the wide road, the tricks in the article are needed.

"For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Matthew 7:13b NIV

[Patricia Shannon]

Sometimes we need other people's example to help us think of doing something, to give us the idea. Like, in my early days of driving, after a few people let me into busy traffic, I realized how helpful, even vital, it was, and started doing it for others.

[hari]

I don't know why one needs Jesus, as an excuse, to do good in this ...world.

[Icarus]

It's hilarious to see christians speak of charity. The most violent religion over the past 500 years now wants to use this mythical messiah to debate the verities of the 'gift'.

I suspect this icon is empty of any real charitable value. We should move on to more difficult gods to manipulate into imperialst ends. Perhaps an elephant lord?

The "gift" is a social act, designed to imply obligation, and exhalt status. The idea of true altruism is lost in the very discourse it belongs to.

[reason]

I'll be a contrarian here - is he sure? Consider a special collection after a catastrophe with a phone in. Plenty of people give anonymously. They are influenced not so much by Fred Smith of Little Rock donated $200 (who the hell is he) as by the number of people who are donating (everybody thinks it worthwhile, so I won't be a chump doing it too).

And what Robert D Feinman said - in this I agree with him. (In fact I think we should set up a public charity fund that democratically allocates philanthropic funds - voluntary taxation - only for social purposes).

[robertdfeinman]

Charity is when you give money and the recipient decides how it will be used.

Philanthropy is when you give money and the donor decides how it will be used.

[eb]

A civilized society should not rely on the vagaries of individual generosity but instead simply make charity unnecessary. For a wealthy country this should not be too difficult, given a will to do so. The churches would hate it, of course, which is another point in favor.

[jwg]

Having just given what is to me a very large sum of money in exchange for having my recently deceased mother's name put on a building at a local university, I think this whole discussion is hogwash. It was lot of work and coordination to do this, and I didn't get much of anything out of it except a handful of "thank you"s

You give because you can. If you can and you don't, you suck. To hell with what others do.

[evagrius]

"The "gift" is a social act, designed to imply obligation, and exhalt status. The idea of true altruism is lost in the very discourse it belongs to."

The "gift" is only a social act when the giver and recipient are known to one another.

Giving anonymously, spontaneously, without expectation of obligation...that's a gift.

[truthseeker]

The quote from Jesus is totally out of context, which is the norm for saying Jesus was wrong. If you read the ENTIRE passage is says that the point is not to do it for praise from others. Which I challenge anyone to say is wrong. Isn't the whole point of philanthropy to HELP others, and I believe that anyone who does not question "the purity of motive" is acting foolish. The hidden agenda is usually hidden for a reason. If your ONLY agenda is to help people in need you do not need to be a "peacock" for that, and people will praise you for what you did anyway, not for making sure everyone knows what you did. The other key point ignored in this out of context article is that it is done this way if you want to please God, if all you want is reward from man than go get your bull horn and tell everyone. The whole point of Matthew 6:1-4 is to question YOURSELF about your motives. So lets put this whole article and comment in context with another quote. "Judge not lest ye be judged."