Now that I am employed again, I'm going to start giving monthly to three different charities: a local community thing (probably the free medical clinic that helped me years ago when I was sick), a local environmental protection group, and something non-local, whatever that may be. I have to research which charities I want to give to once I get my first paycheck.
I'm curious about "charities are a way for the rich to assuage their consciences." What is the alternative? I mean, if you have a lot of money, isn't it right to give some to the poor? Or are we talking about celebrity orphan adoption and things that seem designed more to bring press to famous people?
I'm curious about "charities are a way for the rich to assuage their consciences." What is the alternative? I mean, if you have a lot of money, isn't it right to give some to the poor? Or are we talking about celebrity orphan adoption and things that seem designed more to bring press to famous people?
Good question.
I guess I'm assuming that many (not necessarily all) of the rich have managed to get rich through means that are at best unfair (inheritance) and at worst directly exploitative of those less fortunate. I possibly should not have used the word 'rich' when what I meant was 'guilty and wealthy'.
I think that it's particularly hypocritical to invest in certain industries (for example those reliant on child labour or environmental damage), and then to donate a tiny portion of the income from that to alleviating poverty. I don't think that's really charity--yes, it's better than not donating anything at all, but it's not as good as thinking about the initial choices to be made... I'd rather see ethical investment in the first place.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-12-29 05:10 pm (UTC)I'm curious about "charities are a way for the rich to assuage their consciences." What is the alternative? I mean, if you have a lot of money, isn't it right to give some to the poor? Or are we talking about celebrity orphan adoption and things that seem designed more to bring press to famous people?
no subject
Date: 2007-12-29 05:32 pm (UTC)Good question.
I guess I'm assuming that many (not necessarily all) of the rich have managed to get rich through means that are at best unfair (inheritance) and at worst directly exploitative of those less fortunate. I possibly should not have used the word 'rich' when what I meant was 'guilty and wealthy'.
I think that it's particularly hypocritical to invest in certain industries (for example those reliant on child labour or environmental damage), and then to donate a tiny portion of the income from that to alleviating poverty. I don't think that's really charity--yes, it's better than not donating anything at all, but it's not as good as thinking about the initial choices to be made... I'd rather see ethical investment in the first place.