|
Post by robeiae on Oct 18, 2017 15:39:43 GMT -5
This is intended to be a sort of open discussion about the concept, how we understand it, and why some people are called philanthropists, while others are not (and whether or not it matters how one "becomes" a philanthropist). What prompted this was the George Soros thread and a recent news item I saw about Mark Cuban possibly running for office. Look at the wikipedia pages for these two: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sorosen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_CubanBoth are labelled as "philanthropists" (I realize this is not authoritative and is subject to editing, still I think the sense one gets about these two conforms to this). So is Bill Gates. In contrast, Zuckerberg does not carry that label, though his wife does. Yet, on wikipedia's list of notable philanthropists, Mark is there. But I really don't mean this to be about wikipedia's consistency in this regard; I just see it as a starting point for understanding the use of the label. Anyway, the wikipedia entry for philanthropy is, I think, really bad. Especially with regard to it's attempt to draw a firm line between philanthropy and charity: Imo, that's not true at all. If one must draw a line, I would suggest that philanthropy is a subset of beneficence and of charity, that it is marked by large-scale, organized giving. And because of this, philanthropy as an endeavor is limited to people with the means to engage in it (please feel free to disagree with me). And I think that raises a serious question: does it matter where the money is coming from? To be blunt, can a "robber baron" become a philanthropist? Here's an article to chew on, that opens with the following (but read the whole thing):
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 18, 2017 19:10:42 GMT -5
Anyway, the wikipedia entry for philanthropy is, I think, really bad. Especially with regard to it's attempt to draw a firm line between philanthropy and charity: Imo, that's not true at all. If one must draw a line, I would suggest that philanthropy is a subset of beneficence and of charity, that it is marked by large-scale, organized giving. And because of this, philanthropy as an endeavor is limited to people with the means to engage in it (please feel free to disagree with me). Totally agree. That Wiki quote sounds like a Republican on a soapbox. To me, philanthropy is a state of mind that informs one's actions. It's a life mission. Imo, it boils down to what one feels one's purpose is, when it comes to their acquired wealth. A lot of people who acquire wealth have, as their objective, to amass more wealth, leave it to their heirs. That's the end game. Other people, philanthropists, have a desire to do humanitarian good with it -- to do things that essentially go against the idea of amassing wealth. I.e., giving it away. There's a middle ground - charity - where one gives a (relatively) small portion of their wealth away to good causes. It's unfortunate that "philanthropist" seems to only apply to those with wealth. If a middle-income person gave away all his extra money for the good of humanity, he should be a philanthropist too, right? I mean, even if all he has left over is a few thousand dollars after the bills are paid. Define "generous." Is it generous because of how much it is in dollars, or is it generous because of how much it is in relation to how much the giver has to give? Have not yet read the whole article, but I will. I'm guessing that's when the robber-baron aspect referred to will come into play. But from the excerpt, I'm not seeing those sort of things -- setting up foundations -- as philanthropy. Not that I don't think those foundations can't do good things; they most certainly can. It's just that I don't see a wealthy person setting up a foundation as the same as a life's mission or a state of mind, as it were. More like, what some uber-wealthy people do with a fraction of their money (i.e., charity). I'm very glad they do it, mind, but the philanthropy designation does not apply, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 19, 2017 17:25:09 GMT -5
This is intended to be a sort of open discussion about the concept, how we understand it, and why some people are called philanthropists, while others are not (and whether or not it matters how one "becomes" a philanthropist). So I read the article from "Dissent Magazine," and I have to say, it does not seem like a topic of, or even a segue into, the concept of philanthropy at all. The article is basically a litany of complaints regarding wealthy non-profits: tax-exempt status, tax deductions for contributing to such, and the idea that the wealthy few can circumvent the will of the people through these organizations. That's a fine topic*, but it's not actually about philanthropy as the thread title and the quote above suggest. Unless the point was for us all to cry, "THAT'S NOT PHILANTHROPY!" In which case, you win. There are very wealthy people who are actually committed to philanthropy, to giving away the vast majority of their wealth for the benefit of humankind. Here's a list of the top twenty "most generous" people in the world. Note that most of them are still extremely wealthy. There are a few true philanthropists on that list, imo. Namely, the ones whose contributions very nearly reach, or even exceed, their current wealth. *I seem to recall a similar topic, in regard to the Harvard Endowment Fund.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 19, 2017 18:49:07 GMT -5
I disagree. However flawed, the wikipedia entry on philanthropy reflects the general view. And the fact of the matter is that people like Bill Gates are considered great philanthropists.
If you want to argue that Gates shouldn't be considered a philanthropist, that's fine. That's a fair angle, imo.
But the article I linked to is about philanthropy and what is considered such.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Oct 19, 2017 19:18:54 GMT -5
I disagree. However flawed, the wikipedia entry on philanthropy reflects the general view. And the fact of the matter is that people like Bill Gates are considered great philanthropists. If you want to argue that Gates shouldn't be considered a philanthropist, that's fine. That's a fair angle, imo. But the article I linked to is about philanthropy and what is considered such. Here is Merriam Webster's definition of philanthropy. The origin of the word comes from "phila" (love) and anthropic (human being). To love human beings, essentially. So no, I do not think that just because people use the word "philanthropy" when the uber-rich give money away makes it so. Here is a thing Bill Gates has done which I consider philanthropic. That does not mean that everything Bill Gates does is philanthropic. This has nothing to do with the point the article (or you) are making. To use as their (or your) diving board the notion that whatever wealthy people do with tax-exempt dollars is seen as philanthropy--ergo, philanthropy is not worth subsidizing with tax dollars--is misleading. Would you argue that Bill Gates trying to combat malaria should not be a tax-exempt enterprise? Would you argue that feeding starving children, or providing them with healthcare, should not be a tax-exempt enterprise? I think not. As a society, we should most certainly discuss what are and what aren't humanitarian efforts, what things that should or should not be tax-exempt enterprises. (Can we start with religious organizations and go from there?) It is not humanitarian to use mega-rich (tax-exempt) organizations to circumvent the will of the people when it comes to public education and the like. So I think the article should have just said that; they should have said: this is NOT philanthropy, instead of assuming it's philanthropy and then blaming "Big Philanthropy."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 19, 2017 20:44:15 GMT -5
I don't think you're following all of the article.
Regardless, the article was as I said in the first post: something to chew on. The thread is intended to be wide-ranging and open, not limited to a narrow point/argument.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 23, 2017 0:04:38 GMT -5
When I think of "a philanthropist," I always envision a wealthy person whose primary work activities are focused on donating or otherwise putting their wealth to charitable uses for the common good (in a variety of areas). Or, even if they do have a main, non-charity-related "day job," they are largely known publicly for their charitable largesse.
And, I do think that one must be wealthy in order to be a philanthropist because, to me, it implies investments of large amounts of money toward specific causes.
So, when Bill Gates was running Microsoft, he might've occasionally donated to good causes, but his main gig - or the gig he was most well-known for at the time - was running Microsoft. However, after he left the company and dedicated his life to putting his money to good use mainly with funding charitable causes (or causes that otherwise advance the common good of humanity), then he became "a philanthropist," at least in my eyes.
To me, Mark Zuckerberg is primarily known as running Facebook. So, while he might spend a lot of his money donating to good causes, he doesn't seem (to me) to be "a philanthropist" because that is not what he dedicates the majority of his time, energy, and wealth toward.
This is not the "correct" definition, I'm sure, and I might be alone in viewing it this way, but that's the feeling I get when I think of what a philanthropist is. I'm open to revising that thinking, though.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 5, 2017 9:46:50 GMT -5
According to this piece, Trump's website once described him as an "ardent philanthropist." Not just any philanthropist, mind you. An ardent one. Anyway, I'm not sure what I think about the idea that a philanthropist has to be wealthy, or has to be known primarily for their charitable giving. With regard to the latter, I'm sure there are people out there who give generously and yet don't receive much recognition, perhaps because they are wealthy but not particularly famous, or for other reasons. People like Gates or Buffett seem like rather uncommon examples, insofar as they are highly well known among the public. I also wonder about whether one's giving must necessarily be broad in scope, as Opty mentioned. That does seem typical, on the one hand. Certainly the Gates Foundation has a pretty diversified portfolio, for example. On the other hand, there are people like Guggenheim who were labeled as philanthropists but were only really interested in one particular thing (art, in the case of Guggenheim.)
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 11, 2017 21:11:56 GMT -5
|
|