For contrast...

...here is a post by a friend on the same subject, which I think he posted without any knowledge of my posting. What coincidences...

* * * * *

If there's one thing that I can't resist, it's a challenge to engage in philosophical debate.

I have always found philanthropists to be a rather curious people. Within this group, I generally find that most people fall easily into one of two categories: first, the philanthropists who realize that the act of giving or donation provides some personal and selfish benefit, and second, the philanthropists who refuse to acknowledge that the act of giving or donation provides some personal and selfish benefits. Regardless of which group the philanthropist belongs, I would submit that both groups are motivated (in the act of giving) by this selfish and personal desire. This is not to say that philanthropists are inherently evil, just inherently selfish, just like the rest of mankind.

People have long been fascinated by the question: are people inherently good or evil? In my view (and many philosophers through the ages have espoused similar theory), mankind is neither good nor evil (a moral judgment), but rather selfish (a trait genetically selected for, by Darwinian theories).

So, let us address the concept of philanthropists as "selfish" and see if there is something there. It may be about this point where you're thinking: "˜oh no, this can't be right. I don't get anything for helping anyone and I'd still do it anyway in the absence of a physical benefit', and you'd likely be right. This point is difficult to prove, but there are any number of "˜selfless' people out there whom you could point to who do not derive any physical personal benefit from the act of giving. Let's take the people who receive a healthy tax write-off for the donation of the proceeds of liquated stock off the table then, shall we?

Humans are wonderfully complicated creatures. One of the most interesting aspects of humanity, and perhaps the one thing which has allowed us to transcend our beastly relatives/ancestors is our greatest invention: society. The creation of a society, fortified with language, has allowed us to carry innovations from generation to generation and to the ends of the earth. More importantly, society has allowed us to create an artificial environment of incentives and disincentives, carrots and sticks. Without society, humans are very simple creatures. We have wants which we spend our time satisfying: to eat, to sleep, to mate, to survive. As Hobbes best states, we would live in a state of nature, where you would kill your neighbor if you could to eat his food, steal where you could get away with it, and frighten off predators and competitors when appropriate.

Along comes society, where we create hard rules (laws) and soft rules (common courtesy, socialized expectations) to create artificial incentives to nudge people in the direction we want them to. Hard rules are attached to putative measures while soft rules are attached to social disapproval. The best thing about society is that it gives us the ability to socialize these rules into new members at a very young age. The great lessons of kindergarten aren't playing with toys and napping but: "these are the rules of the society in which we live. Conform to them." Some examples are: "˜Don't hit the other kids with the plastic baseball bat', "˜Put the building blocks back where you got them', and "˜It's naptime. Everyone go to bed, even if you're not sleepy.' Of course, as you get older, these rules generally become the more recognized forms of: "˜don't kill/hurt others', "˜park your vehicle within the lines', and "˜keep working even if you're not happy'. But I digress. In fact, it looks like I've gone off completely on a tangent without talking about philanthropy at all. Let's bring it back to the point.

There are many ways to incent people to otherwise unreasonable action through society and the socialization of ideas into us when we are young. For the act of philosophy, there are hard rules (tithing through a religious organization, the penalty for failure of which is eternal burning in hell) and soft rules (being told over and over again to "˜share your blocks with Timmy' results in a belief for the equal redistribution of wealth to the world's block-less). The failure to follow this inherently socialized belief is the psychosomatic reaction which we know as "guilt" or "shame".

To make the point overt: The wealthy philanthropists fall into two types, those who give because they get a healthy tax-incentive and realize they get benefits (tax relief) from engaging in the practice of philanthropy, and those who give because it was socialized into them that because they are wealthy, they have a duty to give and provide back to the community, and their motivation for giving is to escape the feelings of guilt or inadequacy they would feel if they failed to give.

The unfortunate thing about the second type of philanthropist is that they often feel the need and/or obligation to share their guilt with the rest of us. Some give disapproving glares at us when we walk by the red cross donation box without stripping off our clothes to donate. Others try to get us to donate also by actively soliciting us to similar action, and attempting to play off a similar sense of guilt that they feel we should feel at our failure to act in a similar way. And if we fail to act or feel in a way towards society that they do"¦.

Well, they become disappointed. Very disappointed.


Let's bring it back around then, shall we? Do I seem heartless or that I don't care about the world? Not at all. I live here too, and the people I love do as well. Do I feel that philanthropists are inherently stupid and deluded? No, I don't. I just feel that they act in a way which makes sense to them, but that shouldn't mean that I need act the same way. After all, this is nothing new. A few centuries ago, people were convinced that they had to go around the world and convert people to their belief and faith to avoid feeling guilty for their sins. A few centuries before that, people were convinced that they needed to sacrifice human beings to avoid the wrath of the Gods. Imagine what we'll believe tomorrow.

* * * * *

Note that, despite the differences in language, the general thesis of this piece is the same--people generally give out of expectation of some sort of response that is self-benefitting. For some, it is economically profitable; for others, psychologically. I find this analysis a little bit procrustean, though, for it oversimplifies the kinds of reactions people seek for their deeds...