The divide between the rich and poor has slowly been increasing for the past decade. Since the start of capitalism, bringing along with it the spread of globalization, there have been many uproars of movements against many injustices coming to attention by the mass public. With these movements also came an increased pressure on the government to help aid the civilians that are suffering all around the world. Unfortunately government aid is pretty limited when it comes to development due to security concerns, and the clashes some government aid programs might have with the government’s own self-interests. Even with many civil societies helping to promote human welfare, their abilities are also quite limited because of government interventions. While government contributions on social programs and infrastructure is at a steady decline, the need for private philanthropists to alleviate social struggles and aid in development is at its peak and at a better advantage then that of public philanthropists. Therefore, the small percent of wealthy individuals should actively contribute in charitable giving and private funding for the betterment of society as whole. By looking at many factors that contribute to private philanthropy one can eventually conclude that there are many assets for having a society aided by private funds. There is also some minor costs that are associated with private philanthropy but in this case the benefits exceed the costs. This paper will look at some works of philanthropy from private philanthropists such as Bill Gates and his contribution with the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation. This paper will also be looking at the major differences between private and public philanthropy, how these differences contribute...
... middle of paper ...
...d Melinda Gates. (2013). Retrieved from: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global- Health/HIV
Bishop, M. (2013). Philanthrocapitalism: Solving Public Problems through Private Means. Social Research, 80(2), 473-490
Bishop, Mathew, and Michael Green. 2008. Philanthrocapitalism: How giving Can Save the World. New York; Bloomsbury Press.
Canada Revenue Agency. (2012, July 11). Retrieved from website: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts- gvng/chrts/glssry-eng.html
Ratnesar, R. (2011, February 03). Peter thiel: 21st century free radical. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_07/b4215072350752.htm
Sullivan, P. (2011, January 28). Weighing the best vehicles for philanthropic giving. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/your-money/asset-allocation/29wealth.html
(2013.). Retrieved from: http://www.mcf.org/publictrust/faq_public
Peter Singer a philosopher and professor at Princeton University who wrote the essay titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, where he argues that wealthy people have a moral obligation to help provide to developing nation’s resources that would increase their standard of living and decrease death due to starvation, exposure, and preventable sicknesses. John Arthur’s essay argues that Singer says that all affluent people have a moral obligation to give their money to poor people to the extent that the wealthy person would be on the same level as the poor person, poor people have no positive right to our assistance, and wealthy people have a negative right to their property, which weighs against their obligation.
The nonprofit sector in America is a reflection some of the foundational values that brought our nation into existence. Fundamentals, such as the idea that people can govern themselves and the belief that people should have the opportunity to make a difference by joining a like-minded group, have made America and its nonprofit sector what it is today. The American "civil society" is one that has been produced through generations of experiments with government policy, nonprofit organizations, private partnerships, and individuals who have asserted ideas and values. The future of the nonprofit sector will continue to be experimental in many ways. However, the increase of professional studies in nonprofit management and the greater expectation of its role in society is causing executives to look to more scientific methods of management.
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions on moral belief need to change. Specifically, He argues that giving to famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react ... cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135). In other words Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief.
Charity handouts did not necessarily help feed a poor family, but aimed to “... produce most beneficial results to [the] community” (Shi 60). This meant that the wealthy didn’t directly give citizens money, but built free public utilities. Among these free services were libraries and and centers for scientific research. Without a doubt, these buildings do not help put food on the table. They do, however, create a sense of hope for educational and social improvement for the working class.
Does helping the poor, saving lives, shielding families and inspiring individuals interest you or do you feel that it is your duty to uplift individuals in social classes? The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast Jane Addams and William Sumner. Although Addams and Sumner bear some superficial similarities, the differences between the both of them are clear. Although Addams and Sumner share a similar background, they each have their own worldview on people that are poverty stricken and individuals that are wealthy. Addams’ main focus was to contribute in any way that she could to help the poor and impact lives for a more efficient society. Sumner believed that the supply of wealth was based on people’s skills and those that have
As has been said, Carnegie suggested solution for problem of administration of wealth distribution of surplus fortune in order to construct community services and money donation for those who really want to improve his or her life. Carnegie proposed the solution of constructing community services such as parks and libraries owing to the donated money. Construction of community services is much beneficial rather than fractionally giving money to every poor. This is because these community goods may bring such conditions which will give chanc...
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
... aid across the world. As we have established that we do have an obligation to redistribute globally in a cosmopolitan perspective, distributing wealth however we may need to rethink what the best assistance is. Amaryta Sen conveys that before sending aid to the third world state, we would need to fully understand the limitation of freedom in the country. Redistributing wealth to global countries requires it to be evaluated by the economic shortage that they are suffering and to see whether it will be efficient in the long run. The more effective ways to contribute would be to international relief agencies or NGO’s that would pursue international development projects to help those in poverty or the alternative option by Tom Campbell’s idea of a ‘Global humanitarian levy’ which suggests a more appropriate taxation on all citizens to collectively aid those in need.
Gates’s idea regarding philanthropy due to the fact that upon setting up his foundation in 2000, he already was aware of the widespread criticism of existing programs to help the less fortunate. Moreover, successful programs, such as the Green Revolution, were overshadowed by growing awareness of their negative side effects on the environment and local cultures. Mr. Gates had growing awareness of such limits sparking new ideas on how businesses could approach poor countries. However, there is little evidence of benefit from the $2.3 trillion given in foreign aid over the past five decades. For example, all the aid given to Africa over the years has failed to stimulate economic growth on the continent. One might argue that there are just as many needy individuals in America, why not try to critically think of way to innovate to embody the struggling Americans, rather than poor countries around the
Most people feel that they should help the needy in some way or another. The problem is how to help them. This problem generally arises when there is a person sitting on the side of the road in battered clothes with a cardboard sign asking for some form of help, almost always in the form of money. Yet something makes the giver uneasy. What will they do with this money? Do they need this money? Will it really help them? The truth of the matter is, it won't. However, there are things that can be done to help the needy. Giving money to a reliable foundation will help the helpless, something that transferring money from a pocket to a man's tin can will never do.
Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest men of the nineteenth century, believes that social inequality results as an inexorable byproduct of progress. In his 1889 article entitled “Wealth,” Carnegie claims that it is “essential” for the advancement of the human race that social divisions between the rich and poor exist, which separate those “highest and best in literature and the arts” who embody the “refinements of civilization” from those who do not (105). According to Carnegie, this “great irregularity” is favored over the “universal squalor” that would ensue if class distinctions ceased to exist (105). Carnegie states that it is a “waste of time to criticize the inevitable,” believing that poverty is an inherent characteristic of society rather than the result of elitist oppression (105). Carnegie may conclude that the rich do not necessarily owe the poor anything, but he also believes that wealthy philanthropists such as he should donate their vast accumulations to charity while they are still alive. In Carnegie’s mind, contributions to supporting educational institutions and constructing landmarks serves to
As the old saying goes, money is power. As the statistics show, some people have an insane amount of money, yet their fellow countrymen have close to nothing. In a struggling economy, unfair distribution of wealth can create real problems and unimaginable hardships for some people. For example, millions of people pay $2 for a bottle of designer water, while millions more live on less than $2 a day. If this is to one day change, wealthy people must adopt a much more magnanimous conviction towards their money.
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
A wealthy person, with the desire to do well with their fortune, could benefit society in a number of ways. Carnegie has verbally laid a blueprint for the wealthy to build from. His message is simple: Work hard and you will have results; educate yourself, live a meaningful life, and bestow upon others the magnificent jewels life has to offer. He stresses the importance of doing charity during one’s lifetime, and states “…the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away ‘unwept, unhonored, and unsung’…” (401). He is saying a wealthy person, with millions at their disposal, should spend their money on the betterment of society, during their lifetime, because it will benefit us all as a race.
In his article, the author Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to encourage people to reevaluate his or her ability to contribute to the underprivileged people of the world. Singer is addressing this article to any person with the ability to donate. The author makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. Additionally, in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author explain that we have a duty to give, but he is not stating whether it is a duty of justice in Narveson’s sense. He is not stating if would be morally correct for anyone to force us or impose to us to give to the needy. This author is trying to persuade or convince people to give voluntarily. The author is not enforcing to do something, this is contrary to Narveson’s position “enforced fee”. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” addresses the urgency for a more generous world. Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The main purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to