By Kathryn Swistak
The phrase, “help those who cannot help themselves” is a general principle of the practice of philanthropy. To be philanthropic is to regard others’ needs and treat them with goodwill, especially when in a better equipped or more favorable situation. Often seeded high in the financial brackets of life, those who contribute to society typically do so in a fiscal manner through large monetary donations to the charity or cause deemed a fit enough investment. After all, Andrew Carnegie, father of the great Gospel of Wealth, wrote how the most important part of helping others is “to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those who desire to use the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to do all” (Carnegie). Essentially, Carnegie’s cardinal rule of donation is to contribute to causes that have a sizable return on investment, either through fiscal or social reward.
The issue in contemporary society regarding this practice is its gradual movement from goodwill to one of public relations as a social elevation tool. In past societies, philanthropic endeavors were the building blocks of society necessary for the advancement of wealth, academics, and the growth of industry; yet, today they simply are actions ultra-wealthy citizens take in an attempt to conceal the clandestine nature of the double-edged sword hidden amongst their olive branches. Although there is no “how to be a good person” handbook, I am almost certain once you have reached a high status in life, the “what to do with my money when the amount is larger than any singular person could use in one-thousand lifetimes” chapter would light up with a fluorescent “Read Me!” sign. If society, as a whole, can revert back to philanthropy’s origins, as opposed to a way for rich individuals to “one-up” their friends, then more people would participate, and the extremely wealthy would not have to parse together whether or not it is their social responsibility to be decent humans. Instead, it would become the societal norm to share good fortune with the less fortunate.
Now one might think, “what if you are born into a rich family? It’s not your fault you are better off than others, why should you have to give away your family legacy?”, and the only possible way in which one can answer that is with another question, specifically, “what did they do to deserve such luck?”. It is an unanswerable question, but when it comes down to it, can one even compare the meticulously crafted legacies— foundations of knowledge with the resources and potential to impact the lives of hundreds maybe thousands of individuals— to the financial well being of the few they impact in the most direct human way? Upon the death of Andrew Carnegie, his will dictated that ninety percent of his fortune be donated to worthy causes. Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Hall, and the World Court in The Hague are all modern beneficiaries of his generosity, a legacy almost more respected than the man himself, but that remaining percent has amplified the modern concept of generational wealth tenfold. If wealth, especially that accumulated through generations of questionable practices, is passed on from heir to heir, then can there truly be a way in which those terrible circumstances will be recorded and remembered without the possibility of the conveniently timed removal of “rumored truth” besmirching the legacy of well-respected business moguls and family names? The short answer to the long-asked question is no.
As billionaires of today continue to support charities while elevating their personal status, the question arises regarding the effectiveness of contemporary efforts. Philanthropic generosity, particularly due to its aura of showmanship, has begun to air on a side of suspicion, at least in part due to the immoral actions of those who use the benevolent appearance as a facade for less-than-angelic activities. Since the days of Carnegie, the government has established a robust social safety net, designed to assist those in need, but the question once again arises, if the more fortunate were to step in and assist others through altruistic action, how would any form of organization or government manage to effectively and equitably distribute those resources? It is of the highest importance to consider all conditions present, and if one were to take Carnegie’s approach, it would be dependent on the odds of a potential payout.
No comments:
Post a Comment