Billionaires need a giving philosophy
From world hunger to global warming and the arts, there are numerous causes that individuals, foundations and NGOs choose to support. And even in an economy that has been slow to recover, billionaires are continuing to pledge significant portions of their wealth to philanthropy. But when considering what philanthropies to support, a Northeastern professor says the wealthy need to address some moral and ethical questions. In her new book, “Giving Well: The Ethics of Philanthropy,” Patricia Illingworth, assistant professor of philosophy in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities, explores these issues as they relate to giving.
What considerations should individuals make when donating money?
In making decisions about giving, people ought to consider how great the need is and the likelihood that the money donated will actually address that need. People should undertake a kind of moral due diligence in which they look at the charity to see how much of the money donated will actually be spent on addressing the need, and how much on other kinds of costs. Sometimes charitable money can actually make things worse for beneficiaries — for example, making them dependent on donor agencies. Because of this, charities are interested in sustainability.
People should also consider what kinds of “causes” deserve their support. Should they give to the people most in need, such as the global poor? Or, should they give to environmental organizations, and the interests of future generations? Some people believe that their obligations to help are owed most strongly to those close by, such as family and community groups, while others believe that those with greatest need worldwide deserve their help. Ethics are often key in resolving many of these questions. There are even organizations that specialize in evaluating charities for donors.
What do you think are the most significant moral questions in the practice of philanthropy today? Who should give?
Should everyone give, or are only the rich under an obligation to give? Poor people living in wealthy OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries are much better off than people living in very poor countries. Do the poor in the United States have an obligation to help the poor in Burundi?
How much money should people give? Is it the same for all people or do billionaires have an obligation to give a greater percentage of their wealth than people with incomes in the middle range?
Are there any moral priorities among charities? Is poverty, for example, morally more important than the arts? Is giving a purely private question to be left to the individual, or should ethics provide guidance on priorities based on moral principles and the demands of global justice?
How do NGOs navigate the moral priorities that inform their decisions regarding their projects?
NGO’s use a variety of criteria for determining what projects to support. They have obligations to both the donors who support them, and to those they are organized around serving. Whatever criteria NGOs use, they need to be transparent about them, and ensure that donors understand the terms of their gifts. In a world in which there is so much need, it is important that charitable monies not be wasted, nor that they cause more harm than good. Therefore, NGOs need to use some kind of cost-benefit analysis in determining what projects and people to support.
Provided by
Northeastern University
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
2 comments
-
Consumption rivalry
May 25, 2012
-
Bilateral trade between all countries
May 24, 2012
-
Is the economic foundation of social media in jeopardy?
May 20, 2012
-
Psychology: Rosenthal and Hawthorne Effect
May 15, 2012
-
Is GDP and National Income the Same Thing?
May 13, 2012
-
Difference between hourly wage and real GDP per hour worked?
May 12, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Social Sciences
More news stories
Social welfare cuts ultimately come with heavy price, researchers say
(Phys.org) -- Slashing government funding for Medicaid, food stamps and other programs that serve the poor – while politically popular with some lawmakers and many conservatives – may do more harm ...
Other Sciences / Social Sciences
May 24, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (16) |
130
Ancient Bethlehem seal unearthed in Jerusalem
Israeli archaeologists have discovered a 2,700-year-old seal that bears the inscription "Bethlehem," the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Wednesday, in what experts believe to be the oldest artifact ...
Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils
May 23, 2012 |
3.5 / 5 (14) |
23
Oldest Jewish archaeological evidence on the Iberian Peninsula
German archaeologists of the Friedrich Schiller University Jena found one of the oldest archaeological evidence so far of Jewish Culture on the Iberian Peninsula at an excavation site in the south of Portugal, ...
Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils
May 25, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (4) |
12
Dollars and sense: Why are some people morally against tax?
As the U.S. presidential election campaigns heat up, the economic debate is dominated by bailouts, austerity and, inevitably, taxation. Now a new study published in Symbolic Interaction asks why tax is such an important issue ...
Other Sciences / Social Sciences
May 23, 2012 |
3 / 5 (2) |
12
Oldest art even older
New dates from Geißenklösterle Cave in Southwest Germany document the early arrival of modern humans and early appearance of art and music.
Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils
May 24, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (3) |
6
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidia’s competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Browser wars flare in mobile space
The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors’ tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend
(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.
Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?
(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 0.9 / 5 (55)
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (12)
The most important question for any charity is are they perpetuating dependency or not?
Socialists want to increase dependency upon the state.
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (56)
The most important question for any charity is are they helping people?
Capitalists only seek to help others in an attempt to obfuscate their real goals.
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (11)
In a free market, a capitalist must persuade people to buy his product. He can't use force like a govt can. Therefore the capitalist must make his product better and cheaper than his competition to persuade a customer to buy.
If you complain that companies like GE avoid taxes or that companies lobby govts, that is the fault of the socaialist govt for wanting to control those business. The anti-trust suit against Microsoft by Clinton is a classic example of a govt shakedown/protection racket.
And we now have a Chicago politician as president. Obaman is now twisting arms for campaign contributions from Wall Street. Why would a 'capitalist' contribute money to socialist if not for protection from govt regulations and tax breaks?
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 1.1 / 5 (55)
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (8)
Billionaire Andrew Carnegie.
http://andrewcarn...ide.html
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
What principles are you willing to compromise?
'Liberals' don't respect anyone's liberty and property. Not even yours.
Do you compromise with thieves? That is what 'liberals' are.
Bastiat described 'liberals' quite well in The Law. 'Liberals' legalize plunder.
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn -- Terrorists And Communists
Frank Marshall Davis -- Communist
Anita Dunn -- Maoist
Van Jones -- Communist And "Rowdy Black Nationalist
Obama is trying to complete the nationalization of health care. They nationalized two car companies. Not a socialist?
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (53)
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (8)
Why do 'progressives' assume liberty, sovereignty would lead to violence? Are they projecting their own violent intentions? That must be it as the 'progressive' agenda requires state violence to administer.
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (7)
http://www.atlant...-founder
http://www.carneg...dex.html
http://www.hhmi.o...ins.html
http://www.fordfo.../history
"The very, very rich have been very, very generous this year. The following 12 billionaires have pledged gifts totaling $35 billion in just the last 12 months."
"Warren Buffett
Amount Pledged: $31 billion
Cause: Global poverty, health care and education"
http://www.forbes...ide.html
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
"(1913)Foundation's board makes its first grant: $100,000 to the American Red Cross to purchase property for its headquarters in Washington, DC."
"Medical Education in the United States and Canada, the Foundation makes a grant to Johns Hopkins University to extend its model full-time system of basic medical education to clinical departments of medicine, surgery and pediatrics."
"Aware of the domestic success of the Rockefeller Sanitary Commission for Eradication of Hookworm Disease and desirous of expanding that work overseas, the board of trustees in June appropriates its first funds for work outside the US$25,000 to create the International Health Commission (later called a board), which launches the Foundation into international public health. This pioneering work establishes the pattern of modern public health services."
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
The Foundation establishes the China Medical Board to develop a system of modern medicine in that country. A report on its recommendation notes, The need is great beyond any anticipation.
The Foundation begins a program of international fellowships to train scholars at the worlds leading universities at the post-doctoral level. Trustee Wickliffe Rose characterizes this fundamental commitment to the education of future leaders as backing brains.
"
"Because the Foundations successful hookworm campaign reveals the urgency for trained public health leaders, the Foundation identifies public health education as one of its principal areas of interest, and builds and endows the first school of public health at Johns Hopkins University. Foundation President George E. Vincent calls it the West Point of public health."
http://www.rockef...913-1919
Jun 02, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
The Foundations work in the natural sciences begins with support to the National Research Council to establish fellowships in physics and chemistry. More than $4.5 million is expended over the next 33 years to train more than 1,000 individuals.
2006:Together with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation commits $150 million to African agriculture over the next five years. The goal: to train and support African scientists in developing and delivering improved seed varieties and to help African farmers gain access to modern plant-breeding techniques."
http://www.rockef...-present
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
a few billions in a year is pocket change for these guys.
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
So?
Jealous you don't get any?
Thou shall not covet is a pretty good commandment regardless of who wrote it.
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (54)
The ulta-rich only possess their wealth because of quasi-legal theft fought for by 'conservatives'.
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (7)
Unfortunately, there are significant economic effects. In an effort to seek a return on money that would otherwise be earning minimal returns sitting in a bank account or holding bonds, the very wealthy tend to speculate on commodities and asset markets, rather than directly invest in productive industry. This creates market volatility and overall market price inflation as other investors seek to follow the lead of the major players, causing pain for the real consumers of those commodities. Once the investors decide they've milked a market of all procurable value, they leave, causing a price collapse and pain for the real producers.
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
The consumer class in the US in incapable (on its own) of increasing its spending to generate more demand. It's overleveraged, having borrowed for most of a decade to finance its consumption. Now, it's scaling back spending in an effort to unwind some of that debt. Unless their income is increased, they won't increase their spending.
At the same time, fiscal conservative insist that the government reign in its spending, so now we have the government not spending as much, and the private sector not spending as much, while we remain a net importing country. The result of this is that incomes must go down (spending=income), putting pressure on consumers to further reign in their spending, resulting in a destructive spiral.
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
If you want to blame the government for this mess, I'm right there with you. Since Reagan, the government idea for an economic stimulus has been to buy back bonds before their due date and lower interest rates on its loans to banks and investment houses. That doesn't increase spending, it increases speculation. Instead of giving money to the wealthy, they should be giving jobs to the unemployed.
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Where are the 2Trillion dollars worth of jobs??
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
Thousands of new businesses are created by such 'speculative investments'.
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Investment that buys up a stock of real resources or financial derivatives at a low price, holds them until the price rises, then sells them, or which borrows some stock of real resources or financial derivatives, sells them at a high price, then buys them back at a low price, this is financial speculation. There is some room in a market for financial speculation for liquidity purposes. Too much creates stagflation and eventual economic collapse. Conservative policy encourages the latter.
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Where are the 2T dollars worth of jobs that were supposed to be created by the tax cuts to the wealthy?
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
Some of that spending also went to ensuring that those who currently HAVE jobs could keep them.
That 2T dollars that the current leaders spent was not specifically intended to GAIN jobs, unlike the Tax Cuts to the Wealthy, which were pushed through by the republicans.
So again, I ask, Where are the 2T worth of jobs?
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 0.9 / 5 (50)
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
All those jobs 'saved' were union govt jobs, not wealth creating free market, tax revenue producing jobs.
Obama made many claims that have all failed in the past two years, except he is working very hard to complete transformation of the USA into a socialist state.
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
http://www.washin...records/
"During the recent recession, the U.S. Congress passed two large economic stimulus programs. President Bushs February 2008 program totaled $152 billion. President Obamas bill, enacted a year later, was considerably larger at $862 billion. Neither worked."
http://www.commen...ulus-go/
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (51)
I guess (what you would deem) socialism worked, huh?
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Oh i see, so the wars STARTED by Bush mean nothing because Obama decided not to pull out of a nation that had their infrastructure destroyed.
So the Banks were union govt jobs?
Unfortunately most of Obama's great ideas that gave the nation hope were stifled and denied to the American public by pig headed obstructionist Republicans.
So you're saying that the growth in debt could have been mostly offset by denying the massive tax breaks we gave to the rich?
You still have offered NO explanation as to where the 2T worth of jobs that were supposed to be created went.
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Guess which party opposed direct job creation and insisted the bulk of the money be spend on financial options like bond-buybacks?
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
In particular, Democrats are hoping that Mr. Obama can make peace, somewhat at least, with Wall Street, where financiers have expressed increased alienation with the party and the White House after the oratorical pounding they have taken for their part in the financial crisis that began in 2008. Several hedge fund managers who supported Mr. Obama in 2008 now indicate that they will support the Republican Party in 2012. "
http://www.nytime...ate.html
"Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs."
http://gatewaypun...timulus/
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
1. Obama Pissed off the bankers and wall street, because he did not directly serve their interests, and they plan on turning to the republicans who they feel are more likely to be bought off by their campaign dollars?
And
2. That a self titled Right wing group thinks obama is bad?
Do you even read what you post before you post it?
Still wondering about that 2T dollars worth of jobs, found any yet?
Jun 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Why did Buffet support Obama?
Why did Opra support Obama?
Why did Trump support Obama?
Why does GE's Immelt support Obama?
Jun 04, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
I see we still get invaded by Republican paid posters like you. I wonder if it pays well?
Jun 04, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
Typical, avoid explaining the origin of 'liberal' billionaires and why they support, or did, support Obama.
Jun 04, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
"another in the long list of crony capitalists who share Obama's belief that government should pick winners and losers in the economy. Success in the Obama-Bryson world doesn't come from profitably providing needed goods and services to consumers at affordable prices. Rather, crony capitalists make it by cultivating the right political connections and manipulating government regulations to guarantee profits and limit competition.
But there is another side to Bryson, one that fits squarely in the tradition of radical Obama appointees like "green jobs" czar Van Jones, a self-proclaimed Marxist; Medicare head Donald Berwick, who swoons over Britain's socialized National Health Service; and National Labor Relations Board member Craig Becker, the former labor lawyer who never met a union power grab he couldn't back. Early in his career, Bryson co-founded the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental advocacy group that has relentlessly pushed litigation and regulation to
Jun 04, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washington...JLw5YX5"
Jun 04, 2011
Rank: 0.9 / 5 (51)
The origin of liberal billionaires is the same as any other billionaire: poor economic policy. Simply, billionaires shouldn't exist.
I dunno... maybe they supported Obama because they care about the US and didn't want a doddering old fool in office? Maybe they haven't drank the "Koch" and aren't convinced they have to screw everyone around them to maintain their vast fortunes even a small fraction of which would provide them with an enviable lifestyle.
Jun 04, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
http://www.kochin...les.aspx
"Successful companies create value by providing products or services their customers value more highly than available alternatives. They do this while consuming fewer resources, leaving more resources available to satisfy other needs in society. Value creation involves making peoples lives better. It is contributing to prosperity in society.:
http://www.kochin...ess.aspx
Jun 04, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
The reason some billionaires cozy up to govts is to get the govt to destroy their competitors.
If the govt can drive competition out of business, GE doesn't have to provider better products at lower cost.
Jun 04, 2011
Rank: 0.9 / 5 (51)
You would have supported the Standard Oil monopoly? Please explain to us how monopolies are good for the consumer. And before you go there, the government isn't a business and therefore cannot be a monopoly. Calling the government a monopoly is like calling the number 3 angry. So please don't play semantics games. I'm sure few here are confused by your BS anyway.
If you can't explain to us why monopolies are good for the consumer, please explain to us how a 'free market' will prevent monopolies.
Jun 04, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
What monopoly?
Customers happily supported being able to purchase quality kerosene at the lowest prices from Standard Oil.
Jun 04, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jun 04, 2011
Rank: 0.8 / 5 (51)
Sure lots of billionaires donate a lot to charities. However, the way I look at it is: does a billionaire help more people with his donations than the number of people that would have work had his salary been divided by minimum wage and used to pay others. I'd be skeptical that the billionaire is able to help more people through charity than those people would be able to help themselves had they just had jobs.
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
No, it was a muck raking journalist who had a grudge. And we all know journalists never lie.
"Ida Tarbell, in contrast to Sinclair, concentrated on nonfiction. Her major work, growing out of her own fathers failure in the oil business, was a 1904 two-volume account of John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Company. It was a formative factor in stereotyping him as a ruthless, ice-hearted skinflint who undercut his competitors for the long-range purpose of driving up prices to consumers.
The reality is that Rockefeller was obsessed with efficiency and innovation. He not only squeezed more kerosene out of petroleum than other refiners but ingeniously recycled by-products into salable goods. Prices plummeted. At the peak of Rockefellers market domination in 1899 the price of kerosene had dropped from 1870s 26 cents per gallon to less than 6 cents per gallon. "
http://www.mackinac.oor
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
""Standard treated the consumer with deference," he wrote. "Crude and refined oil prices for consumers declined during the period Standard exercised greatest control of the industry." There was no upward spike in prices to take advantage of the absence of competitors because competitors were always present, and they substantially undercut Standard's share of the market long before the company's dissolution by the Supreme Court in an ill-advised 1911 ruling"
http://www.mackinac.org/3884
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Unbeknownst to the Germans, Dow simply employed agents to buy all the cheap bromine they could get their hands on. He then sold it at much higher prices prevailing in other markets in direct competition with the Germans, who eventually threw in the towel when they saw how their attempt to make Dow their prey was actually making him rich. The Dow story is one that predatory price theorists never talk about because it utterly undermines their entire case."
""court records overflow with actual examples of how disgruntled competitors alleging predatory behavior clamor for government to hamstring their more-efficient rivals.""
http://www.mackinac.org/3884
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
"In addition to the initial conditions, the expansion of freedom conditions over time (economic, civil, and political) also positively influences long-run economic growth. In contrast, no evidence was found that the initial level of entitlement rights or their change over time had any significant effects on long-term per capita income, except for a negative effect in some specifications of the model. These results tend to support earlier findings that beyond core functions of government responsibilityincluding the protection of liberty itselfthe expansion of the state to provide for various entitlements, including so-called economic, social, and cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long run and may even make them poorer."
http://danieljmit...011/06/0
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
http://www-wds.wo...5660.pdf
Jun 05, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
World Bank data supports the theory that freedom increases prosperity and socialism makes people poorer.
http://www-wds.wo...5660.pdf
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
All of his actions paint him as a Republican and not a Democrat.
I realy think Obama is worse than Bush.
At least with Bush you knew what you had, not with Obama, what a two-tongued snake.
Ron Paul might not seem to be a bad president. I would like to see a young socialist president though, get those rich taxes going again.
Jun 12, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
yeah right... without socialism people that got injured and can no longer do their jobs, because they cant find a job, dont have money for school etc. wouldnt even survive.
freedom my ass, how can you be free when you dont have money todo anything? socialism actually enhances peoples freedom. the idea is that everyone has the right to live and develop so they can have a role in society. how else are these people going to school or live when they get injured if it wasnt for government giving them money.
Hey you got your money what do you care?