Hi everyone,
One of the most interesting things I noticed about our class
discussions is the collective wince that happens when someone mentions the word
“obligation.” I’ll admit that using this word while discussing philanthropy
seems a bit strange to me, too, but I was never really sure why. We are all
philanthropists in some way, and are definitely not opposed to giving away our
money, but for some reason we continue to get fidgety at the idea of being required to give.
When I think of mandatory giving, I think of something like tax being taken out of a paycheck (maybe you picture something different). Peter Singer, whose book The Life You Can Save focuses
entirely on what we are obligated to do for others, would certainly not be
opposed to the idea of required philanthropy. If we also consider our debates
on what it means to be an effective philanthropist, wouldn’t requiring everyone
to give – at least a little bit – get us the most bang for our buck?
Maybe our wariness doesn’t stem from any sort of financial
concerns, though. Maybe our issues with obligation come from the personal,
emotional side of giving. On one of the first days of class, Professor Campbell
asked us a few questions about out prior experiences with philanthropy. Almost
all of us shared that our first charitable actions began with being passionate
about an issue or cause. That personal connection with giving is what keeps us
involved, and motivates us to continue giving and doing as much as we can to
help others. We all found our philanthropic niches, and it certainly wasn’t
because someone made us do it. The choice is what makes giving so rewarding.
In the end, requiring everyone to give could probably solve
at least part of some larger scale issues. However, everyone has such a unique
experience with philanthropy that a cookie-cutter approach would detract from
the intrinsic joy that comes with the feeling that we, personally and
voluntarily, helped work towards a better world. Taking away that choice and
that pride would take away our love of giving, and where’s the joy in that?
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteI too agree that there is this sense of hesitation to combined obligation and philanthropy in the same sentence. However, with the help of your blog I have started to think that perhaps the connotation of obligation is not something that should detract from philanthropy but rather enhance it. In fact, I have noticed that I personally feel the highest degree of obligation for things that I feel most passionate about. I do feel obligated to help underprivileged kids, or those around me in need. On the other hand, I usually feel less obligated take action on issues I am less knowledgeable and unattached to. Therefore, maybe obligation is a key ingredient in productive, passionate philanthropy? And maybe there needs to be a higher sense of obligation for more issues?
Hi Rena!
DeleteThanks for your comment, you raise a really interesting suggestion that I never considered before. My thinking when I created this post was that philanthropy and obligation were words that should have almost nothing to do with each other. One makes me think of my love of helping others, and one makes me think of giving as a chore. This comment made me reconsider that thinking.
I love your point about feeling obligated to give not because we are being forced, per se, but because we feel like we need to aid a cause we are passionate about. You tied the two opposing ideas together in a way that I hadn't previously thought of. (You made me rethink my whole post!)
So instead of doing what I suggested and keeping obligation and philanthropy in separate camps, maybe we could integrate it, at least a little, into the discussion of philanthropy. Maybe not as an authoritative, be-all-end-all type of idea, but as a motivator instead. Cool!
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your thoughts on this subject, as it is something that I am strongly opinionated about! However, I have to disagree with both you and Rena on that philanthropy should be an individual obligation. I do not feel that people should feel obligated to be philanthropic. There are basic needs in life that are necessities and obligations to have: food, water, air, and shelter/clothes are a few that come to mind. However, philanthropy is not a basic need and is not an obligation of every person. There is no biological, social, or political requirement for philanthropy that in any way makes it an obligation or a requirement.
Though I do not believe in philanthropy as an individual requirement, I am of the opinion that philanthropy is an overall requirement for the advancement of the human. I define philanthropy as a strong desire to improve the welfare of the human race. Philanthropy is one of the major driving forces behind the development of the human civilization, mainly in the form of the widespread distributions of new technologies for free. I would argue that this form of philanthropy is perhaps the most important, as compared to monetary donations and donations of time. A modern example is that of Jonas Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine. Salk is noted for his refusal to patent the polio vaccine, allowing it to be widely available to the masses for very cheap. Salk could have made millions off the drug, but instead saved millions of lives through his philanthropy. Salk, when questioned about his decision, responded "Could you patent the sun?" implying that it is moral and right to distribute new technologies to the population in order to advance the human race. In conclusion, though I do not agree that philanthropy should be an individual requirement, I do feel that philanthropy is a necessary requirement for the improvement of the human race.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHannah,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post and that you opened up such a controversial topic. As a philosophy student I am exposed to this word "obligation" on a daily basis. The term obligation in philosophical terms is generally referencing a "moral obligation" that is derived from a belief that the act is prescribed by their set of values. In other words people each have their own obligations due to differing sets of values. However, according to Immanuel Kant there is only one single moral obligation and moral law called a "categorical imperative." This imperative is described as a duty because it is a rule and rules bind your duties. In order for something to be a categorical imperative it must be able to be universalized, meaning that it could be possible for everyone to do. Unfortunately we can't universalize donating money or participating in philanthropy. Although Kant would encourage people give to charity, this is an imperfect duty because even though we can imagine it would be a good thing if everyone participated in philanthropy we can't universalize it and make everyone do it. Kant would also argue that being philanthropic for the sake of being recognized for your actions is bad, so only if you are participating in philanthropy because it is your own moral duty and you find it fulfilling then Kant would agree that you have an obligation to participate in philanthropy.
My beliefs fall close to Kant’s, but differ slightly in that although I believe everyone should participate in philanthropy I do agree that it is an impossible task to do. Philanthropy has such a broad range of ways to participate that you may be doing it without even knowing. Personally I am compelled to help other people and that is why my interests brought me into this class in the first place. I would say this obligation is directly connected to my passion for helping those in need and that is why I feel like I must do it. If you lack the passion to participate in philanthropy and see it as a waste of time your “moral obligation” is not strong enough to obligate you into doing philanthropy.
I definitely agree with your statement that “the choice is what makes giving so rewarding” but it is unfortunate that everyone doesn’t choose this path. Personally I believe that everyone should give back to the community or even the world in some way, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be categorized as philanthropy. The people who choose to not give back are the ones missing out on making a change and also gaining a sense of fulfillment. Forcing people by obligation into philanthropy takes away from the joy in the work you do, however I still believe we all should give back in some way, especially in Kant’s terms, if we have the moral obligation to do so. I believe most people in this class have this “moral obligation” that Kant is referencing otherwise we wouldn’t choose to participate in philanthropy at all.
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteI’m really glad you returned to our definitions/discussions of obligation in this post. I know that soon our class may be moving on to figures and decisions and away from philosophical discussion, and I’m glad to have a last chance to share some thoughts. In class, we focus mainly on philanthropy as it exists today, but I would like to take a look way back to philanthropy’s birth to understand what it truly is that we have been discussing.
Searching for “philanthropy” in an etymology dictionary, you will find “c.1600, from Late Latin philanthropia, from Greek philanthropia "kindliness, humanity, benevolence, love to mankind" (from gods, men, or things), from philanthropos (adj.) "loving mankind, useful to man," from phil- "loving" + anthropos "mankind". Originally in English in the Late Latin form; modern spelling attested from 1620s.” That’s a lot to read and take in, but my main understanding is that philanthropy means loving of and kindness towards mankind. There it is, right in the word, proof that philanthropy intrinsically comes from one’s heart and a genuine desire to help others.
When you search in the same etymology dictionary for “obligation”, you will find “c.1300, from Old French obligacion "obligation, duty, responsibility" (early 13c.) and directly from Latin obligationem (nominative obligatio) "an engaging or pledging," literally "a binding" (but rarely used in this sense), noun of action from past participle stem of obligare). The notion is of binding with promises or by law or duty.” An obligation is a mandatory, no excuses, no exceptions performance.
The etymology of “obligation” does not surprise me. I think we all understand what an obligation is. We may cringe at the sound of it, and rightfully so because we have been taught that obligations are to be anticipated with dread and finished with as soon as possible. The etymology of “philanthropy”, however, is a little surprising to me. I know that many philanthropists give from their hearts. This was evident in the I Am a Philanthropist videos and the This I Believe essays and in the stories of our guest speakers the other day. I knew philanthropy could be born of emotion, but did not know that philanthropy itself is derived from and is defined by genuine love of and care for others.
Language is carefully and intentionally built the way it is. Perhaps philanthropy has changed and picked up new connotations over time, but I think it’s important to respect the initial purpose of the word. “Obligation, duty, and responsibility” simply do not connect with “humanity, benevolence, and love to mankind”. If giving is loving and we are not obligated to love, why should we feel obligated to give unless required to do so? The proof is right there in the words themselves: philanthropy should be fueled not by obligation, but by passion and love.
Hannah, I loved reading your “bang for our buck” through mandatory giving proposal. After reading your convincing argument, I tried to think of the downside of this type of system and now I see both sides of the argument to implementing mandated giving. Since you already covered the potential benefits of it, I hope to cover some of the potential shortcomings.
ReplyDeleteI am going to assume that people view this mandated giving as a loss in their disposable income. There are two very common responses to these changes in income (or sometimes it is a mix of both responses). First, people often value each hour worked less as it brings them less money so they work fewer hours. Second, others often feel the need to increase the hours they work to make up for this perceived loss in income. Either of these could harm donations.
If the first response occurs, this may eventually lead to some people to choose a job with a smaller salary because of the new lower value they associate with working. With a smaller salary they would presumably be required to donate less, so they may opt for that option. Similarly, they may choose to work fewer hours at the same job because the value has gone down for them. A mandatory giving system may have a similar impact on some people as when taxes are taken out of their paycheck. Right now, it is not unheard of someone taking tax concerns into consideration when deciding between job offers, so may giving may be factored in similarly.
Also, this may change the amount of time people spend volunteering. Maybe the second response type would essentially create a substitution between the time people would have spent volunteering, to more hours working to compensate for the income they are now forced to spend on giving. They could also choose to volunteer less with the justification that they are helping more through financial support. People may even choose to cut their donations down to the minimum requirement, due to the frustration of treating giving as an obligation. If changes like these do occur, maybe this may not be the best “bang for our buck.” I think it ultimately ties back into the intent of the donor. If someone does not want to give, they may ultimately find loopholes around increasing their donations.
Finally, I am sure all of us have been told not to do something before and consequently that action becoming much more appealing. I think we can reverse that scenario here. If we are told to do something (i.e. that we must give), that could change our desire to give. I am trying to think back to causes I have donated money and time to over the past few years. Almost all of them were at times where I felt no pressure or obligation to give, but just the desire. I have noticed that when feeling that pressure of obligation it becomes much harder for me to give. I remember earlier in the semester someone mentioned being more inclined to donate to the Salvation Army outside of stores or at a cash register because of that fear of judgment. Maybe it’s just me, but I actually feel less inclined to give during these situations. It’s not necessarily even because I do not agree with the cause, but simply because I do not want to be told that I need to donate to the cause. As you said “the choice is what makes giving so rewarding.”
Hi, Hannah. This is the exact concept I struggle greatly with. We all can agree that if philanthropy became a law that everyone must follow, the world would probably become better and poverty would probably be eliminated. So why are we all hesitant to agree that philanthropy *should* be an obligation? I actually discussed this in my essay, but I couldn't really make a decision of what side I sway towards.
ReplyDeleteMy main argument against "obligation" is that philanthropy is really a selfish act. We do philanthropy largely because it makes us feel good. We are humans, after all, and we can't ignore our basic desires to feel like we matter and we make a difference. So I guess what I question is if there is such a thing as selfless philanthropy. But then that would mean that a truly selfless person cannot possibly be a normal human. So how can we possibly break our binds of human nature to convince ourselves of moral obligation to all other humans? It just doesn't seem possible at all.
I'm torn on the issue of a non-philanthropic person is, by default, a bad person. I think they're just people who are limited their own human traits. It's not their fault that they're naturally self-centered (we all are to varying degrees). People sometimes just can't overcome their own desires for self-preservation.
I do think that in order for humans to progress as a whole, we have to be able to think outside of ourselves. It's sorta a weird concept, but our only limitation is us. Is that a limitation we could ever overcome? I honestly don't think so. I don't think we could ever come to a point when we all agree that philanthropy is a requirement to being human... unless the law mandated that we be philanthropic.
Hi Hannah,
ReplyDeleteI will admit to being one of the people that cringe when someone mentions the words obligation. I’m not cringing because of its usage in regards to philanthropy; I just don’t like that word. I don’t enjoy feeling that I am obligated to do something. I can enjoy something but if it becomes mandatory for me to do, I will seemingly enjoy it less. I think a part of it has to do with my free will, I like feeling like I am making my own choices and not making decisions or doing something because someone told me to.
I don’t think getting everyone to give will be effective. The whole purpose of philanthropy is to spread the wealth, it is for people who have more to give to people who have less. Yes those in need can help others too, but what if they have nothing to offer but time? How would a required philanthropic system work if the people who the aid normally goes to are required to give as well. Isn’t that aspect defeating the purpose of philanthropy? The tax example led to me to think of collective action problems that this system would lead to as well, people would have an incentive to free ride because undoubtedly they will benefit from this system without having to pay any costs.
Is there a specific organization you would have to give to or does all the money go to one place and people in charge would divvy up the money to different nonprofits? I critiqued the idea at first but now I am wondering if it could be kind of cool. Imagine everyone in the world had to donate a dollar once a year and all the money was pooled together. There would be a group of members each country would select and they would spread the money in a way that benefitted a wide array of people with a wide spread impact. I am thinking of this probably because of our discussion of giving circles on Tuesday. A worldly giving circle would be a really cool idea but would never work out because of different interests.
The conflicting interests involved if everyone were to donate money leads to your assertion that it would be no fun to give because it takes away the uniqueness of giving and I agree. In the beginning of the semester we discussed that simply giving doesn’t make you a philanthropist, it is the intent behind the action of giving that matters. Yes if everyone was obligated to give it would have a huge impact but it would take away the sincerity and the good intentions behind philanthropy and would corrupt what it is now.
Going on kind of a spinoff on Jen’s comment, this is also relevant to Kant. If everyone was obligated to give money to charitable organizations and some people only did it because they were forced to, Kant wouldn’t care if their actions led to great benefits to the organization, he would argue that the person had bad intentions and was not acting in a morally right way. Does intent or consequence matter more in terms of philanthropy? That is a tough question to answer, someone could have selfish intentions but could really help the organization financially and someone else could have good intentions but can only give a fraction of what the person with bad intentions gave. Which donation would the organization appreciate more? From a philosophical standpoint Kant would appreciate the donation from the person with good intentions more while Mill would appreciate the bigger donation more as it promoted greater happiness. As someone not associated with a nonprofit organization I want to say I would appreciate the person who gave with good intentions, but a president of nonprofit might appreciate the bigger donation regardless of intentions. What would you prefer?
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great question. Required giving is something that is a important topic in philanthropy. I have noticed this first hand starting my own non-profit organization. One of the hardest aspects of this is starting an organization and funding it successfully without free-riders. I noticed our generation struggles with free-riding. Many people want all the glory while putting in minimal work and this can be taxing to the organization and the founders. We shouldn't have an issue with this because we are supplied the finances, however this is a key point we should consider if we want to take on a career in a non-profit or in the field of philanthropy. Anita opened .my eyes to the required membership fee and how strictly she enforces the code. I think that is a critical feature to enforce and it must be enforced well to have a successful organization in philanthropy! Great post!
-Pat LaBuff
Hannah, thanks for your insightful blog post. The "obligation" thing - I completely agree - giving is a two-way street. As important as the gift itself is the feeling that the giver receives. You are absolutely correct, in my opinion, that is what keeps people involved in philanthropic causes. Yes, we are all bias and we all have our own unique preferences but thats what makes the world such a cool place. If everyone gave what they could, to that which they preferred, then all of the small "niche" giving would certainly lessen suffering and make the world a better place.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I agree with your conclusion about the intrinsic joy that giving brings and the long-term value thereof. I found your blog to be very well written and enjoyable to read! I also like Jen's reply. I too am a fan and student of Kant and agree with your take on "moral obligation".
Hi Hannah,
ReplyDeleteYour astute observation of everyone’s visceral response to required philanthropy is interesting. On the one hand, I see your argument and to a degree concede to your point that more money would be available for philanthropic work, but with that said, I also think that a model in which one is conscripted is both dangerous and a threat to liberty. When one was is required to give, I think the sentiments behind the money or time donated change. It no longer comes from a place of doing good for the sake of doing good. It becomes just something else we have to do as oppose to something we want to do. In part, I believe therein lies the difference. Philanthropy ought to be something we want to do, not something we have to do. When you remove choice from the equation is when things become complicated. I think that’s why everyone feels uncomfortable with the idea of required obligation. No one wants to be told they have to do something.
Aside from an encroachment on our liberties, I also think that this model is ineffective because it would lack the core values that sustain philanthropic work. There may be an abundance of money, but we as a society don’t understand why philanthropy is important or why there is a need, then ultimately I think its objective falls short. A part of the process of becoming a philanthropist is self-reflection. When we make it mandatory that is lost. Ultimately, our obligation to give should not come from government or from our parents, but from within.
I find what you wrote very interesting and I agree with it to an extent. Just as Jen said, we may have a moral obligation to give, but is this reason enough to make a tax of sorts for charitable giving. I don't know if you have ever read or watched "A Christmas Charol", but in one of the first scenes Scrooge is approached and asked to give to the homeless. He replies that he does, and that his hard earned money is taken away from him to give to the lazy people, the vagrants and the convicts to support them and their lives. Now of course, he is referring to his taxes going to support welfare and the prison system etc. I believe that many people would agree with him; that taxation to an extent in forcible charitable giving. Surprisingly, philosophers and renowned scholars also hold this type of ideal, including Robert Nozick who says we have no responsibility to others and that “Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor” (and he says his unironically, if you can believe it). In the context of the rest of his essay, he is referring to giving to those who otherwise don't deserve it, I don't even want to know what he would say about charitable giving. I know this may seem a little off topic, but in a round about way I'm trying to answer your seemingly rhetorical question at the end of your post.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this "obligation" doesn't have to be written down in law but can be taught in school and through our communities. All people should give (if they can afford it), and should be able to decide where to send their money and how to spend their time. This obligation should derive from inside us, and and from our personal philosophies, and our personal need to give.