In the segment of “Hannah’s Take” in The Power of Half entitled Learning from an Extremist, we meet Zell Kravinsky, a man who “sees
everyone as equal, including himself”. Kravinsky was inspired to donate a kidney
when he found at that “the risk of dying while donating a kidney is one in four
thousand”. With these odds in his favor and the physical capability to make a
donation, Kravinsky donated despite his wife’s worries that one of his family
members could one day need a kidney. This donation makes sense to me. Kravinsky
saw a way he could make a big difference and seized the opportunity. None of his family members were actually in need of a kidney, so his donation seems safe and rational. However,
Hannah then writes “Kravinsky argued that he would allow his child to die if it
permitted only two other children to live”. Hannah describes this attitude as “selfless”,
but I perceive it in a different way.
I do not think there is anything wrong or selfish about
caring about your loved ones. Earlier this year, one of my best friends was
diagnosed with stage 4 Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Our community rushed to her support. People
took turns preparing meals for her family, running errands that the family couldn’t
find time for anymore, and sending love to Holly is every way. Holly “kicked
cancer’s ass”, as her younger sister says, and is now in remission (Go
Holly!!). She’s improved medically, but economically her family is really
suffering. Although she was nervous and a little embarrassed, Holly created a
Go Fund Me account where she tells her whole story (http://www.gofundme.com/hollyscollegefund)
and gives anyone the opportunity to donate to her future college and medical
bills. (I recommend checking out Holly’s page if you get a chance. She’s
amazing.)
Since Holly posted
the link on her Facebook about a week ago, the results have been incredible.
Everyone is donating: friends, families, teachers, even our peers from high
school whom Holly never really knew. One girl donated $5 with a lengthy, supportive
message. Another person donated $2,500 completely anonymously. Holly’s fundraiser
page has been shared over 300 times on various forms of social media and she’s
already halfway to her goal of $30,000. People are taking the time not only to
donate, but to encourage others to do the same. Holly has genuinely appreciated
every contribution, from $5 to $2,500 and everything in between. She tells us “Every
bit makes a difference”, and she is absolutely right.
Many of the people donating, like myself, know Holly
personally and are supporting her because we love her and want to provide
whatever help we can. I don’t think there’s anything selfish about that. Any
amount of the money and time that has been geared towards Holly could have been
used “more effectively” to treat another cancer patient, perhaps several other
cancer patients. I’m sure Zell Kravinsky would argue that spending time, money,
and resources on one person instead of many is wrong, but I disagree. Any amount or level of giving for any reason should be welcomed and respected. If personally knowing someone in need inspires you to donate, you should donate and be proud of your actions.
Hannah’s
question “Think about the one person you love the most in your life. How many
lives would you be willing to exchange for that one?” takes Kravinsky’s concept
of everyone being equal to an unpleasant and unrealistic extreme. Philanthropy
should not be a matter of quantity over quality. All humans are equal, but human
lives should not be seen as a scoring system. If anything, supporting a loved
one can inspire someone to reach out and give more in the future, creating further
meaningful philanthropy. It is important to give back to the community, but
equally important to support people that you care about on a personal level.
After reading your post I am going through an inner struggle and conflict. I wrote a whole post about how I think it is more beneficial and effective to give donations to organizations that think about the future and want to eradicate problems, organizations that think about long term goals not short term benefits. I argued that giving to someone directly is not as beneficial to them as giving indirectly, trying to solve the main problem instead of temporary solutions. I held all these beliefs and then I read your post. I very rarely give my money away and make all kinds of excuses for it, the favorite and most common being "I'm a broke college student." Yes I have given a couple of dollars to a kind homeless individual on the train and young performers on the train who have entertained me, but it is still a rare occurrence. However I clicked on the link and donated money to Holly's fund. What truly touched me about her story was that while reading her post the entire time I was thinking oh my god that could have been me last year. However after I donated I realized that my donation was slightly hypocritical. Yes I felt so good after giving but I also came to the realization that I just wrote a whole post against what I just did. Would it have been more beneficial or effective if I had donated to Hodgkins lymphoma research instead? Maybe. Do I still feel strongly about what I wrote and stand by it as the right way to give to non for profit organizations? Yes. I guess I thought with my heart instead of head, but I have no regrets and would definitely do the same thing again. When I think with my head I came to the conclusion that giving to organizations that help eradicate problems is a better use of my money than giving to organizations that give their money to solve temporary solutions to problems. But when I think with my heart it just makes sense to give to individuals who need money more than I do. I think by writing this comment I have come to a similar conclusion as you- giving is giving and as long as the intentions behind your philanthropic donation are good than whatever you gave is helpful.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing that story Brittany!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you about whether or not philanthropy should be about quantity over quality. I think that this is a common question among philanthropists and will always be a source of confusion and discontent. I think this question stems from the fact that philanthropy always has and always will be a personal commitment; it is something that, for whatever reason, a person makes to sacrifice money that they have worked for or time which they will never get back to help a cause that speaks to them. This relationship between sacrifice and giving makes it extremely difficult to then say what is "right or wrong". I made a similar post about this last week that sort of questions whether or not we should be focusing on calling a donation right or wrong, or instead asking ourselves a multitude of questions to make sure that our money is going where we want it to and it is have as big an impact as it could possibly have. I would argue that its more important to make a meaningful contribution but to also consider if your money is being used effectively. In a situation such as the one you suggested, I think that I would definitely donate to my friend's cause because its something special and personal to me, but I would also look at other charities or organizations that attempt to combat similar issues and see how they manage money to help others; maybe you could suggest these organizations to others who are helping the friend and still inspire others.Why stop your philanthropy with one person when you can both help the personal cause but continue to help a large amount of others as well? But what I guess I'm trying to say is that I agree with both your take and Kravinsky's take. I think extremists like that exist to question and challenge how we view and do philanthropy. My personal response to this is that making a donation should be both meaningful and smart; its not something to do on a whim without research or connection. But then this raises the question, if someone woke up one day and just randomly decided to donate $1,000 to a random charity they have never heard of (no research about it or connection with it), would that be any less right than making a decision based on quantity and/or quality?
I agree with you Brittany, and I would go even further to say that there really is no such thing as a selfless good deed. Whether you are giving to a loved one or to a total stranger, helping others typically makes us feel better about ourselves and is therefore not completely selfless. There is nothing wrong with this. Like you said, when we give we inspire others to give, but beyond that, the rush of endorphins we get when we give inspires us to continue to give. To me the real difference between giving to a loved one or someone we know vs. a stranger is the sense of obligation and guilt that comes with someone we know that we do not necessarily feel towards a stranger. But again, none of this matters. Ultimately whomever you give for benefits from your time or money and if you happen to feel better in the process its a bonus.
ReplyDeleteSomething I have struggled with in this class over the last week is this idea of picking apart someone's philanthropy. We live in a world in which so many people are so selfish and greedy that sitting in a classroom and judging the way in which someone gives to others feels wrong to me. Why should we spend our time criticizing those who are on the right track while others are simultaneously on such terrible tracks.
Obviously we want to learn from other people's mistakes to ensure that we give in the most beneficial way possible, but, like you said, we should be proud of our actions and the actions of those around us. I aspire to be in an environment of inspiration rather than on of criticization.
Brittany,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your story and perspective. I'm not quite sure what your major is, but if you ever end up taking a philosophy class, you might find that the questions you seek answers to are not much different from the questions (western) philosophers ask about our society as a whole. Policy, at least American policy, is very much painted in the same way. We constantly have to choose between laws that maximize the most good for society as a whole or laws that retain our individual autonomy. Kravinsky, while I suppose admirable, chose to act both selfless and selfish at the same time. On one hand he willingly gave up an organ that can save someones life, but on the other hand he went against the wishes of his family. You are right, there is nothing wrong with caring about your loved ones, but there is something wrong when our empathy cannot extend beyond our loved ones, community, or other direct relationships. While the actions of your community were indeed philanthropic, I often wonder if people can go beyond the aforementioned criteria. What Kravinsky did, though a tad impulsive, is indeed an altruistic and philanthropic act. He expected nothing in return except for someone else to live on. Perhaps, hypothetically putting his children in a mathematical equation was in poor taste, it is actually the way that most philanthropic and policy decisions are made (maximizing utility). I think the problem is that while we can agree that all lives matter, we cannot get over the fact that scarcity is a reality both in terms of time and money.
"All humans are equal, but human lives should not be seen as a scoring system." Interestingly enough, though I don't agree, we do actually put value on life. There are reasons that people react to the death of children in one way versus the death of an adult. We, as a society, tend to value the potential life of a child a lot more than that of an adult. We tend to view a child or young persons life as unfinished and promising. Ultimately, I think we have to find a balance between our personal ties with our loved ones and our obligation to the rest of humanity. There is a fine line, but I think it would take a drastic change of consciousness.
Brittany, first of all thank you for sharing the story about your friend Holly with us. I agree completely with your assessment of Zell Kravinsky’s philosophy towards the value of human life and giving effectively. In a situation similar to yours, my best friend’s 10-year-old mentee on her swim team was diagnosed with Stage 4 neuroblastoma last fall, and immediately I was compelled to donate to her. I think it is interesting that you brought up the differences between the donations, like the girl who donated $5 and wrote a lengthy message versus the anonymous donor who gave $2,500. Drawing back on our former discussions of intent and capacity for giving, the motivation behind the donations may have been different. The girl may have only been able to afford to give $5, but her desire to show her support may have also had an important affect on Holly’s mindset towards receiving the money.
ReplyDeleteI also think the two arguments/points that Hannah raises based on Kravinsky’s philosophy are awful, to be frank. To say that of the lives of two unknown children are worth more than your own child, whom you love and care for and is a part of yourself, is absurd. Granted, Kravinsky might not act according to his own beliefs if he was faced with the situation in real life, but most people believe and understand that it is a basic tenet of human existence to put those who you love above those whom you do not. The utilitarian approach to philanthropy is flawed in our deepest understanding of what it means to be human; what you care about is important in your decision making, and ultimately is your motivation for all that you do. You also brought up the question asked in the book, “Think about the one person you love the most in your life. How many lives would you be willing to exchange for that one?” In the same vein of reasoning that you used, I don’t feel as if it is rational to simply count bodies rather than considering other factors that obviously influence humans, on a much more real level than philosophical argument.
Brittany, I appreciated your story and I am glad that Holly is on her path to recovery. With all of the readings and class discussions, I constantly feel pushed back and forth between more inclusive and effective (numerically) giving, and one that is more relevant to me as a person. We learned about people's ideas on effective giving, such as Peter Singer, as well personal emotional stories that even if one cannot relate with -her or she can sympathize with. How can we say what is the right or wrong way, or what one should be selfish or selfless about?
ReplyDeleteI think that no matter what the motive for giving is, the important thing is that the act of giving itself. I don't necessarily see Zell Kravinsky's actions as selfless because of the impact his choices and dogmas have on those close to him. If he made a choice to be a functional part of his family, he should be conscious of their opinions and the effects his actions could possibly have on them. However, his actions are good in nature and are making a difference.
Finally, I think most of the giving we do is essentially selfish. Even though we are losing something, no one would be partaking in the act of giving if they were not getting more out of it than they were giving up, not necessarily materialistically. The feeling of giving and making a change is a good one in its nature, however this feeling becomes the drive for good actions -not the action or the change that could be made themselves. Also, on most instances people do give to causes they feel are relatable and relevant to them. A person is more likely to donate to an organization that supports his or her values, even if in a geographically unfamiliar location. These can be seen as a selfish acts, but do we really have the right to judge if they are making a difference in one way or another?