Is Philanthropy Good Or Bad?

[LabradoRacer 2]

Numerous are the examples of rich people helping out the needy. While,I have full admiration for the ilk of Bill Gates who does yeoman service with his generous donations, I sometimes wonder whether such philanthropy is in a way bad. I mean to say that poor/developing countries receiving such largesse lulls the leaders/government into thinking that irrespective of the corruption levels,there'll always be some conscientious moneyed man to bail them out. And the people at the receiving end too are blinded to the corruption/poor performance of the government.

Don't you think that philanthropy encourages a system of corruption & siphoning off funds meant for people?

For me ,philanthropy does more harm than good.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Numerous are the examples of rich people helping out the needy. While,I have full admiration for the ilk of Bill Gates who does yeoman service with his generous donations, I sometimes wonder whether such philanthropy is in a way bad. I mean to say that poor/developing countries receiving such largesse lulls the leaders/government into thinking that irrespective of the corruption levels,there'll always be some conscientious moneyed man to bail them out. And the people at the receiving end too are blinded to the corruption/poor performance of the government.

Don't you think that philanthropy encourages a system of corruption & siphoning off funds meant for people?

For me ,philanthropy does more harm than good.

well, it's making fools of Angelina Jolie and Drew Barrymore who now competing on who gives most. You never know what behind's their purpose.

John Travolta and wife also gave alot of help and support with the Katrina disaster, i think it's small money to them....

The legend Elvis was different, he meant it....

[Jez 0]

Numerous are the examples of rich people helping out the needy. While,I have full admiration for the ilk of Bill Gates who does yeoman service with his generous donations, I sometimes wonder whether such philanthropy is in a way bad. I mean to say that poor/developing countries receiving such largesse lulls the leaders/government into thinking that irrespective of the corruption levels,there'll always be some conscientious moneyed man to bail them out. And the people at the receiving end too are blinded to the corruption/poor performance of the government.

Don't you think that philanthropy encourages a system of corruption & siphoning off funds meant for people?

For me ,philanthropy does more harm than good.

You raise some good points there regarding large donations to third world governments. I think philanthropy is a good thing when the large funds in question are given to established, well recognised charities with a clearly defined plan on how they will tackle third world issues, as well as total transparency on the good they've achieved with donations thus far.

[Jean Todt 4]

well, it's making fools of Angelina Jolie and Drew Barrymore who now competing on who gives most. You never know what behind's their purpose.

John Travolta and wife also gave alot of help and support with the Katrina disaster, i think it's small money to them....

The legend Elvis was different, he meant it....

Give the poor how much ever you can, in such way, if you are offering them with your right hand, your left hand should not know how much you are giving. I have seen various so called stars trying to be generous, but guys like MS have offered/helped in a way no one can give you an estimate, now that is what I call as someone being generous.

[Max Mosley 2]

Effective philanthropy is a good thing, but you're asking basically how effective is it in practice? Hmm it's a good question and I don't really know the answer. It probably depends on the context.

US universities benefit enormously from effective philanthropy, and I wish UK ones did as well. Charities often do a lot of good, for example medical charities fund a lot of research here. I guess there's more of a question mark over money given directly to governments in some parts of the world. Also charities may be prevented from working in some places effectively, or they may just be incompetent. And I take your point that donations may actually be counter-productive if they prop up a bad government.

I guess you have to research your cause and target thoroughly. I would hope we never stop giving money to those who need help, where possible, but we should also bear in mind that giving money isn't the only way to help, and in some cases might be counter-productive.

As an aside, I do get annoyed by do-gooders and self-righteous folk. There's an issue with philanthropy and charitable giving in that it's too democratic imho! Headline issues crowd out more worthy causes all the time.

[newredsuit 0]

When a familly member went to an Asian country early this year he said he felt that he had to give $$$ to the underpaid and poorly treated people he met. But in reality even giving every person he met $$$ is not going to change a thing as it is the political and socio-economic structure of the country that needs to be changed, developed and or supported by larger, democratic and economically successful countries.

This will often not happen because the government in poor countries either does not want foreign support(which they see as interference) or are willing to accept it but then use it for their own benefit.

Also there is often no economic benefit to the 1st world countries in helping poor nations, such as many African nations that do not have the mineral/agricultural resources that other nations could benefit from, therefore these countries receive little real and substantial assistance. The provision of aid workers, food packages and the odd well are not going to help the people in the long term if major political and economic changes/development are not undertaken at the same time.

You may thank the US for providing the largest amount of maize and grain to aid programmes, but it is only willing and able to do so because it subsidises it's farmers so handsomely that they produce more maize/grain than there is demand (by countries able to afford it).

In a nutshell I believe that all the aid/$$$ given to poor nations will not change a thing if more substantial assistance is not given to the ruling government to make the necessary policy changes OR if they fail to do so then support should be given to opposition parties who are campaigning for similar changes.

This is a very complex and contentious issue which involves innumerate stakeholders, political structures, policy considerations, ideologies and agendas, so imho, if you can provide a little relief to the people who suffer and die every day whilst the rest of the world argues about what to do and who should do it, then you should!

[Quiet One 15]

These discussions awaken the leftist monster in me, so I can't give my opinion (will be full of expletives and such ) I am hoping Ykick will be able to say something closer to my POV and you will understand it clearer when he posts it than if i do So, Ykick, take the stage!

[cavallino 2]

As for stars, celebrities and the like, their philanthrophy is hardly something to admire, when they happily live with more money than any human being should have. It's been tabloidized by the media the world over, misused through evil organisations like the world bank and trivialised in the extreme. Philanthrophy is important, but there should be no need for it, the emphasis should be on eliminating the need for it rather than pretentious concerts, runs etc. It gives people the false impresion that they're doing something while doing nothing at all. And it is a shame that universities and medical research have to depend on philanthrophy, they should have the first priority over everything else.

[dribbler 6]

Effective philanthropy is a good thing, but you're asking basically how effective is it in practice? Hmm it's a good question and I don't really know the answer. It probably depends on the context.

US universities benefit enormously from effective philanthropy, and I wish UK ones did as well. Charities often do a lot of good, for example medical charities fund a lot of research here. I guess there's more of a question mark over money given directly to governments in some parts of the world. Also charities may be prevented from working in some places effectively, or they may just be incompetent. And I take your point that donations may actually be counter-productive if they prop up a bad government.

I guess you have to research your cause and target thoroughly. I would hope we never stop giving money to those who need help, where possible, but we should also bear in mind that giving money isn't the only way to help, and in some cases might be counter-productive.

As an aside, I do get annoyed by do-gooders and self-righteous folk. There's an issue with philanthropy and charitable giving in that it's too democratic imho! Headline issues crowd out more worthy causes all the time.

I cannot add nor disagree. 'Nuff said.