The Problem With Charity

[jellybeanpimp]

I know this sounds a little mean, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but lately I have been wondering...is charity really a valid business model anymore?

Let me explain.

Most charities are obviously focused on bettering society. For example, a food bank feeds people everyday, so obviously they don't have to starve or get sick or fall victim to any of the horrors associated with poverty.

But how many charities really actually make a difference in society? How many non-profits are actually effective? Sometimes I think not too many at all.

I see it like this sometimes. The person has to want, on some level, to better themselves. Giving away money temporarily fixes their issues, but if they do not know how to make money, what happens when it is all spent? If you do not truly want to better yourself, anyone throwing money into any aspect of your life is like throwing money into a black hole. It will only keep falling, it will never give rise to any kind of system that will provide for someone on a regular basis.

I propose that the highest good is served by putting all of your money into yourself. At least for a couple of years in the beginning (if not more). Now wait a second, that sounds really selfish, but think of it like this. When you are at the gym, what do you use to motivate you? A picture of a guy who has accomplished an extremely well-defined physique. When young gymnasts are training for the Olympics, what is all over their bedroom? Pictures of the latest gold medalist. I think on some level, by making yourself "glow", you are actually triggering a mechanism in others that will make them strive for the same level of being. So in an intangible way, you are initiating change on a much higher level than the writing of any check could produce. It's just that due to it's nature, the exact number of people you have impacted and the nature of your impact can't really be gauged.

But that's not the way most people see it! We are all conditioned to think that shining is wrong. Like you are a bad person if you have a nice car, or you are truly amoral if you live in a large house. But who are the people who have really changed the most people in this world, probably more than the vast majoriy of charities are capable of? The ones who shine the most and say hey, you can be like me too.

Of course, it's an extreme statement to say that non-profits are ineffective (although a lot of them are). I really like Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, and my local SPCA. I know if I had a lot of money I would regularly donate to these charities because they actually do make an impact. But so many are just a waste.

Any thoughts or opinions on the matter?

[jeff3]

They give many of the people supporting them a sense of meaning and purpose, often associated with personal experiences in the area they choose to give and support. It's a two way street and you are just looking at one side of it. Remember, "It is more blessed to give than receive".

[mrthejazz]

I think it depends on the charity and how you choose to rationalize your ethics.

You could argue, for example, that a charity that tries to cure cancer isn't worth it because cancer will save lives, which would increase population growth, which in turn would mean greater competition in the economy, more disease, less food and more pollution. From that standpoint, every time you cure someone of a disease, you weaken the rest of society.

Still, curing cancer is pretty awesome.

[Dulma]

I'm against charity.

Like you said, someone has to *want* to change. The only good we can do for anyone is to give them guidance or resources when they are ready for them or to simply be kind and loving to them, to ourselves, to our family and friends and everyone we encounter.

[jellybeanpimp]

The thing with focusing on yourself is that when you reach the top of the mountain, there's an instinct to want to show other climbers the way. One person who is capable of inspiring a lot of people would be able to initiate change on a very large scale. That's the only time people really do anything, when they feel motivated or inspired. Even with millions of dollars, you really couldn't reach that many people while paying for your own family and expenses. But with your words alone, you could potentially show millions of people the way to make millions. That is, of course, assuming you are a millionaire who has that credibility.

There's definitely more than one way to give though . When it comes to actually pulling out your check book, I would say I'm much more inclined to support a non-profit that focuses on cancer research, preventing animal cruelty, AIDS awareness, or some kind of social cause, as opposed to anything that sounds like a hand-out. I read in the New York Times the other day that the current estimate of unemployment funds that were fraudently collected last year is about $17,500,000,000. Yes, that's billion, not million.

When it comes to charity that revolves around economic issues, I'd probably be more inclined to provide a scholarship, job training, or some kind of business grant. It's like ok, this person wants to change, but is in a position where they face unusually difficult odds. How beautiful is it for me to be the one to provide them with a bridge to a better life? I think that's the balanced approach and it addresses the genuine need of philanthropy while also cautiously avoiding the pitfalls associated with the hand-out model.

[Michael Chui]

Here:

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

The problem with charity is not in its recipients. The problem is with the givers.

Charitable institutions, such as welfare, divorce the link between the generous person and the needy impoverished. This is social indirection.

Charity on the street, where you give to a homeless person, divorces the cause from the effect. This is temporal indirection.

Indirection, social or temporal, is bad because it makes your generosity blind. A person should not be charitable towards a particular group of people without getting to know them first. This investment is the first charity, and paves the way for the second charity: acting to change their circumstances, in concert with them, leveraging the resources you have available to you to do it.

This in no way negates the validity of being charitable in the form of donations. Instead, givers should recognize that they are not being charitable: they are instead supporting charities. In other words, you are additionally a stakeholder in where your money goes and how it's spent. This does not mean that you have the right to countermand expertise; it simply means you have a mandate to do as any should in a democracy: participate in oversight. There are ways to protest the actions of nearly any charity. The more money you have to put into supporting it, the more influence and clout you should be able to leverage to make sure they're doing it right.

AL is wrong in that charity is bad.
He is correct in that charity is producing negative results.
He is wrong that it's because of an abstract force of malicious interdependency sweeping over people.

Never forget that, when it comes down to it, every social thing is made out of individuals and the relationships between them.

Charity fails because the relationships between the givers and the receivers are frayed at best. You do not look at a teacher and say that his charity towards his students is making them useless. You do not say that a parent changing diapers is stealing independence. Why? Because the relationship is there and it is infused with investment and meaning, and driven towards the purpose of ending through growth.

People need to be self-reliant, yes. But they also need to be humble. And that means asking for and accepting help.

[Clint Cora]

Many of the bigger charities are actually huge operations with very large budgets that rival some of the Fortune 500s.

[Lauxa]

Personally, I usually direct my charitable giving towards friends or family instead of organizations. I took a class on the Koran and there is something in there that says something like if you are funding charity while you have family members that are impoverished, there is something wrong with your values.

I like the idea of giving 10%. Although I usually fall short, I think it is a nice goal, and then if someone asks me for money I can loan money to them without feeling resentful. I never loan money if I need it back, a loan is really a gift and if it comes back that's just bonus.

Giving money is just one way of giving support to another person. It exercises my generosity. I am grateful when I am able to help support my friends or family.

Personally, the idea of owning a large house or fast car doesn't motivate me much. On the other hand, I find people who have found ways to make large contributions to bettering society to be very inspiring.

When I am at the gym, what really motivates me is the contestants on Biggest Loser. When I imagine Michael running 5k at over 300 pounds, it makes me feel like I can push a bit more. Of course, I am not an elite athlete (yet), but remember there are more people at the bottom than at the top. Who knows, a homeless person may be more motivated by the guy that overcame homelessness and got his own trailer than the guy that got a mansion.

Sometimes I give to panhandlers on the street. I keep a roll of dollar coins in my purse, and I press the coin into their palms with a smile. I think the act of caring and human contact is as important to them as the money. I had one panhandler that I gave to regularly tell me that I don't always have to do that, and I asked him then why are you standing there? After that sometimes I would not give him any money but he would just come chat with me at the stoplight.

[rodav]

I agree with Jeff3, it's a two way street. Beggars are also helpers of our souls.

When it comes to charity, I only ask one question...would I rather be the receiver or the giver?

[LisaDreams]

I'm an advocate for charitable giving. I am a strong proponent for both personal responsibility and for helping others. I especially love to give to organizations like Heifer and Kiva (help people help themselves), though I also feel that emergency support is important too. I give to a local food bank and youth shelter. Getting that critical temporary help can change the trajectory of someone's life. I also particularly like environmental orgs that do conservation, like the Nature Conservancy.

I feel like I have always gotten back so much more than I have given. Giving has been a factor in my financial abundance and I have grown from the volunteering I've done. I do think it is important to give freely and willingly, not out of guilt, but rather with an intention to amplify what I value.

Lisa

[Cran]

With all good deeds, the giver profits by feeling good about the good he has done, so charity would be justified alone through that.

Charity that wants to make a difference to the world should not focus, or at least not primarily, on alleviating poverty by donating food, medical care etc., but by equipping the receiver to get all things necessary for his future well-being.
Give a man a fish, he will eat for one day, teach him to fish, and he'll support the cat population.

In my opinion, far too many charities are hung up on the short-term effects, which can be a good thing, as it prevents, fo example, starving, but it does not solve anything, and I suspect that this won't change because the short-term goals give results quickly and make the donor feel all fuzzy and warm inside. That's much nicer than to hope your contribution might help in the future.

[Lauxa]

Originally Posted by Cran

Give a man a fish, he will eat for one day, teach him to fish, and he'll support the cat population.

Teach him to fish, he will eat until the fish are extinct.

*sigh*

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

Teach him to fish, he will eat until the fish are extinct.

*sigh*

That's what government regulation is for.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Cran

In my opinion, far too many charities are hung up on the short-term effects, which can be a good thing, as it prevents, fo example, starving, but it does not solve anything, and I suspect that this won't change because the short-term goals give results quickly and make the donor feel all fuzzy and warm inside. That's much nicer than to hope your contribution might help in the future.

Actually, it won't change because it's necessary. Alleviating the short-term is only a problem when it actively stunts efforts at long-term solutions. Handling the short-term does something remarkable: it makes people suffer less. How is that bad?

[Cran]

I'd say it is rather bad nor good, but that is another topic.

I think we already have a point where short-term help eats up all there is (money, volunteers) for good long-term help. Even the money richter countries give is eaten up (Literally!) by short-term help, like the famine in Somalia.

As there seems to be no long-term solution to the problem I think that the area is simply not made for people to live in and support themselves and should therefore be abandoned and not artificially kept alive by transfer.

[James81]

Every now and then I send a donation to The Jimmy Fund, which is a charity organization that funds research for children's cancer.

Sometimes "they just gotta wanna" gets rendered null and void.

[jellybeanpimp]

Originally Posted by James81

Every now and then I send a donation to The Jimmy Fund, which is a charity organization that funds research for children's cancer.

Sometimes "they just gotta wanna" gets rendered null and void.

Very true. I should have titled this thread "issues with charitable organizations" or something like that rather than "the problem with charity". There really is no "problem" with charity of any form whatsoever. The issue I was trying to address was more along the lines of inefficiency when it comes to various non-profit organizations, meaning do they actually accomplish what they set out to do. I have a beef with some of them that I won't get into because on the surface they seem like they actually do something when in reality they are a total waste of time and money. But on the flip side, there are also those that make enourmous contributions to society and they shouldn't be overlooked. I recommend to anyone who is considering donating to a non-profit to look up the organization on Charity Navigator first.

Just wanted to come back to this thread and address that, even though it's been weeks since I started it. I would seriously hate to put anything out there in this world that would encourage someone to be stingy or selfish (what can I say, I used to make a living off of waitng tables...I've grown to abhor the cheap).