After last week’s
discussion on the “The Power of Half,” and our earlier discussion on good
intentions, I left thinking about what truly inspires us to give. It is common knowledge that giving is a good
thing, a fact that has been reaffirmed throughout different scientific studies;
however, the idea of giving can be interpreted countless ways, none of which
are wrong. The way we choose to give aligns
with our individual core values, and this was no different for the Salwens. From the moment Kevin Salwen began describing
his initial lifestyle, it was evident that a priority of his was to spoil his
children. Doesn’t this value perfectly
line up with the motivation for selling their home and donating half of the
earnings? Hannah, a girl whom Kevin
Salwen had strived to provide every last desire for demanded something that his
money couldn't directly buy; she wanted to make the world a better place. It just so happened that Hannah wanted to
make a change, as opposed to wanting a new iPod, but that doesn’t change the
fact that she wanted it, so her father bought it for her.
The fact that
this grand gesture of giving stemmed from a desire to make his daughter happy
doesn't make their donation any less significant. How could it?
The town in Ghana received a contribution that had the potential to
increase their quality of life, regardless of intention. Before our first class, we were instructed to
watch a video, “I am a Philanthropist: Diverse Voices in Giving.” The main take away from this video was that
different individuals from different backgrounds are inspired by different
things, and that is OK. Actually, it is
better than OK. These differences are
what allow each individual to obtain motivation from the world around them, and
better their communities, both locally and globally. Because of these individual differences, I
can support the Binghamton community without feeling that I have neglected a
town in Ghana, because I know that someone else is inspired to help there. These views don’t align with the theory of
effective altruism that we discussed in class, but maybe there is a happy medium. By determining where you are passionate,
maybe the ideas of effective altruism can be used to determine the best way to give back to
that population. I may have not agreed
that the Salwen family made a rational, selfless decision, but that doesn't
change the fact that they made the world, even just a little bit, better.
Hi Lindsey -
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment on finding a middle ground between truly effective altruism and your passions, it's an issue that I've been thinking about ever since our initial discussion on what it means to be effective in something as subjective as philanthropy.
After some more thought, I've come to determine that, to me, any philanthropy is effective philanthropy. Whether it be a $5 donation to an animal hospital or the Salwen's lofty $800,000 to the communities of Ghana, or even non-monetary donations in the form of supplies or time, the important takeaway is not how "efficient" the action was, but that action was taken at all. In other words, passion is something that can't be measured. You can't measure a desire to do good, either. Money can be measured, sure, and I suppose that from a business or financial standpoint every donation's efficiency can be determined, but I think the most important thing is that prospective donors find something that moves them enough where they'd be satisfied spending their money.
Hi Lindsey,
ReplyDeleteI really like that your post directly corresponded with what we have been talking about in class and also supports your personal feelings on how we should give. Your ideas about giving are very open and display an uncritical way of looking at how we do philanthropy in that any kind of service is good. The discussions we have in class really have me torn on whether I believe we should give through our heart and passions or if we should use our heads. I like that you have a firm grip on your ideas and look at any kind of philanthropy as good, even if it is drawn completely from passion. Although the Salwen family was intended to be viewed as an average family that other families can relate and learn from, I find them quite opposite. I hate a lot of things they did including using their good deeds for publicity, however it is impossible to say that what they did wasn't helpful and effective in helping improve people's lives. At the end of the day I agree with you that philanthropy is about evoking positive change and if you can achieve that in one way or another that is all that matters.
I like that you tied in the "I am a Philanthropist" diversity video because you really can see how different people care about different things because of their passions, it is interesting in itself to see if background, age and gender have a correlation with the organizations people support. However, I have to disagree with your statement that you can support the Binghamton community without feeling like you are neglecting the cause in Ghana because you know someone else is helping there. Perhaps it is the way you worded it, but that can lead people into thinking that it is ok to overlook a cause just because we assume someone else is interested in helping it. Although it is impossible to help every cause, looking at it as someone else will do it is never a positive way to make change and can even become hazardous. This reminds me of when we were young and learning about the importance of protecting the environment and not littering. I would always hear teachers say not to throw trash on the floor because we can't assume someone else will clean it up because if they don't we will destroy the planet. Of course this example was exaggerated, but without having people care about causes eventually there may be a lack of people caring about a certain cause, for example the people of Ghana, and then help will eventually become so small no progress will be able to occur. For this reason it is important to spread philanthropic ideas and try and get more people involved because we can't assume people in the future will always care about the same causes. I do agree that any kind of giving is helping the world become a better place, even from the Salwen's who I don't necessarily think are the best people in the world that are making change.
Hey Jen! After reading your comment, I was compelled to look back into my post to determine my initial intentions regarding the statement about helping Binghamton. You, with proper motivation, called me out for acting based on assumption, which is hazardous to both the individual and greater community. It is a person's responsibility to call 911 when they see danger regardless of how many people are around because if everyone assumes that someone else is stepping up, help may never come. This same mentality should be directed towards philanthropy, but this idea makes it so much more complicated to choose where to help. It is not OK to determine where to help based on the assumption that a problem was being taken care of. If this was the case, after the ice bucket challenge no one would ever move to support ALS again. I guess I'm still trying to dissect the complex nature of philanthropy, but thanks for helping me shift my perspectiv!
DeleteHi Lindsey,
ReplyDeleteI think you make a valid point that philanthropy, especially in the form of a monetary donation has the power to have a positive impact regardless of intent. I also agree that each individual is entitled to have their own motivating factor that causes them to give regardless if that stems from the desire to support a personal cause or support a child's interest to give. Whether or not one agrees with another’s philanthropic acts dose not undermine the positive effect that the philanthropy can do. At the end of the day all philanthropy goes towards supporting a worthy cause regardless of intention.
Nevertheless, while believe that intent (even bad intentions) do not make a donation or an act of philanthropy any less significant or beneficial, I do believe intention is a vital part of positively representing the philanthropic world as a whole. On an individual level two donations of equal proportions will have an equally significant effect on an organization or cause even if one of the donations was given out of self-serving reasons. However in my opinion, part of making philanthropic dollars go further involves having passion and being a positive role model for others. This is evident by our class discussion on “The Power of Half”. No one was inspired or motivated by the amazing sacrifice that the Salwen family made. In fact, most of us were put off by the families’ motives and intentions, and as a result had a hard time seeing all the good that they had done. While that does make their act any less significant, imagine how much more good could have been produced if their story left others inspired and stimulated to start a similar project. As philanthropists I believe are job goes farther than just making sure our own dollars are spent well. I believe it is also our obligation to set a good example so that philanthropy becomes less about the individuals act and more about inspiring other to also have a passion to give.
I never really thought about the fact that Hannah was indulged even by wanting to give but that is very true. I wonder how Hannah developed a stronger passion than her other family members and why she did not just want the latest and greatest iPad. As to your statement that at the end of the day it isn't about intent, I happen to agree with you. Our class has gotten quite heated over this issue, however, the bottom line is that the Salwen family is still giving which is more than the average rich person does. The argument over what kind of book "The Power Of Half" is irrelevant in my personal opinion. Whether it's about parenting or it's about philanthropy, the Salwen family made a huge impact and they have inspired me to think about what is truly essential to have in life and what kind of a change I can personally create. Maybe we as a class could be a little less harsh and judgmental towards this family.
ReplyDeleteI really liked reading your post. I completely agree with your point that no way of giving is wrong. This is something that I have been toying with for the last couple weeks after discussions in class and after reading both of the assigned books. I believe I said this in my comment last week, but I feel like we get into a very negative area when we start telling people that they are donating in the wrong way or that they are not donating enough. Everyone knows that they should donate more and most people I know are striving to donate more. I think it really does more harm than good to continuously nag on people and tell them that their motivations for giving or the amounts they are choosing to give are incorrect. As heartless as it may seem, at the end of the day, money donated to a good cause is money donated to a good cause.
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoyed your comment about the Salwen family spoiling their children. I had never thought of it that way when reading the book (probably because Kevin was trying to make himself and his family look as good as possible in the public eye), but after thinking about it, I completely agree with you. The fact that this charity was what she chose to spend her "spoiling" on is a little unusual for a teenager, but at the end of the day, she told her rich parents that she wanted to do something and they made an incredibly spontaneous and kind of irresponsible decision to do whatever it took to appease her. I've said before that I commend their actions as a family, but I really didn't like the book or the family's motivations for giving, and I think your comment completely ties in with my previous thoughts on the book. Thanks for sharing that idea, definitely gave me more to think about!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLindsey,
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up some great points; however, I think I interpreted the Salwen’s actions differently than you. In my opinion, Kevin makes it clear that though he and Joan want their children to live comfortable lives, they in no mean want to spoil them. I think in comparison to the way (he describes) his neighbors, the Salwens attempted to instill good values and morals into their children; and for the most part, succeeded.
However, the part I found most intriguing about your blog post was the question you posed of if it really matters what the intention of the givers are, as long as it makes a difference. This makes me think back to the video we watched at the very beginning of class, the Daily Show Video asked this very question but came up with the exact opposite answer. Our intentions do make a difference when it comes to giving. If we look, for example, to a large corporation who is well known for mistreating its employees, but has pledged to donate millions of dollars to combat world hunger; should this charitable giving be considered philanthropy? We can assume that the giving is meant as a PR stunt, but it still does make a difference, so the question becomes is this giving philanthropy or even good. As a PPL major, I think I have been trained to look at all things from a philosophical point of view, and this case brings up Kant’s opinion of what doing good means. “Good is in good itself”, the only way that we can truly do good, is if our only intentions are to do good. So, this large corporation (while still making a difference) is not doing good, and even the Salwen family comes up short of doing good.
There is no question that the Salwen family is making a personal sacrifice to better the world. However, their intentions and reasons for their actions make all the difference.
Hi Lindsey,
ReplyDeleteI completely understand where you are coming from in your response. I have a bit more of a personal connection to Hannah than most because I've met her and have worked with her in a few of the UN Foundation initiatives to help girls in disadvantaged areas empower themselves and that level of involvement would have never come about unless her father did what he did for her. We all have interests and sometimes the numbers distract us from our personal goals that we set in terms of giving back to the community. My goal is to empower girls who are from disadvantaged areas and backgrounds but that is a goal that cannot be measured in money so in order to encourage me, my parents showed me how to empower myself and then pass on those lessons to others. In Hannah's case, she wanted to alleviate the pain of other around her by sending the message of longevity and self-efficiency. I think if we have a cause, and we work towards that cause (no matter at what level: local, national, international) our work should be considered good. However, many people will question how we came to that cause, how we are supported, how we are involved, etc. Sometimes people forget to look past the details (which by no means am I saying are insignificant) and look at the good that is done. While this class focuses on how to effectively give our grant money, I don't think we should discredit the organizations missions. When we were all going over the form, I think we started to question more about the money than how the organization functions in this community. I think that we should care about the money but not to the extent where we forget why these organizations exist in our community and how they impact the community. Like in the case of the Salwens, they may have donated more than we all are capable of donating and may have taken actions that were more extravagant than we hoped, but they had a mission that they worked on together as a family. This mission had a series of goals and expectations just as many of the organizations we will contact do. This is something that we must keep in mind especially as we move forward in class.
I appreciate your post, Lindsey, because I have been very critical of the Salwens. Hannah and Joseph seemed really spoiled to me, too. I agree that their parents were indulging them during this project. It annoyed me how often Mr. Salwen kept talking about how he felt so awed by Hannah's philanthropic tendencies. I honestly wasn't too impressed. Sure, she volunteered, but so does practically every student at some point or another. She noticed that homeless people exist in the same world as luxury cars, but I don't understand why she hadn't made this connection at a much earlier age. Another thing that really bothered me was that Hannah was so enthusiastic about the project, but once she got to Africa, she and her brother were totally bored. It was hard for them to adjust their expectations of helping in a more "hands-on" way, to essentially just being figureheads. Ultimately, their individual opinions or contributions didn't really matter after all, because the money and the idea of support from the developed world was what really made the difference to the people in Ghana. To the family, I think the intent of giving as a family mattered more than the cause itself, but since it doesn't really make a difference to people they're helping anyway, it's not a bad thing.
ReplyDelete