Giving what you have to people who don't have enough is a form of heroism because most people don't necessarily do it and it can be very helpful. In his small act of philanthropy guided by Grandma, Jack gave a quarter to the "street person" they passed while walking. A quarter does not do very much, but it may help just a little. The problem is, Jack had another quarter that he did not give away. Does that diminish his tiny act of heroism?
 |
| George Soros |
As we move into the "season of giving", donations and philanthropy are on the minds of many Americans, whether rich, poor, or in between. By some estimates, 40% of personal donations are given during December. This brought to mind the many famous, ultra-wealthy philanthropists that we see in the news so often: Bill and Melinda Gates, George Soros, and Angelina Jolie have all given varying amounts to charity. In general an ultra-high net worth philanthropist gives about $25 million over the course of his or her lifetime, which is usually about 10% of their net worth. Some of the "ultra-ulta-high" net worth philanthropists have given much more. For example, the net worth of Bill and Melinda Gates is $74 billion, and their lifetime giving has come to the staggering total of $28 billion, nearly 40% of their net worth.
The question is, are these philathropists, no matter how much they have given, heroes? Or does that fact that they could give much, much more, and still live with very high standards of luxury, somehow diminish their heroism? And what does that mean for the rest of us?
 |
| Bill and Melinda Gates |
I'm not trying to blame these philanthropists for being rich, or to suggest that they should have to spend their hard-earned money on charitable causes. Of course, if you worked hard for your own money, you have the right to spend it on whatever you want. But some people are so incredibly rich that they could live very comfortably on a fraction of their wealth, and the rest of the money is essentially useless. To be honest, I think it is impossible for someone to spend $74 billion. Granted, Bill Gates' house cost $63 million to build, and has a 2500 square foot gym, 24 bathrooms, a 23 car garage, a 1000 square foot dining room, and a pool with an underwater music system. His house also holds Leonardo da Vinci's notebook, the Codex Leicester, which cost Gates $30.8 million. So essentially Gates can have whatever he wants. But the thing is, he could have had whatever he wanted even if his net worth was only, say, $25 billion, or even $15 billion. Maybe Gates should consider giving a little more, since he has so much. That would make him even more of a hero.
As philanthropists (for we are all philanthropists in small ways), are obligated to give all that we do not need? Most people would say no. There are no obligations. Any giving is great. But I would say yes. That is an obligation. An excess of money doesn't do us any good, and it could help someone else. Most of us don't have the kind of excess that ultra-high net worth philanthropists do, but it's something to consider.
This is an interesting post -- I can see that there's an obligation but I also think it gets into this weird guilt thing, because what's "living comfortably"? Should I sell everything & move to a tiny cheap house in Wyoming? I don't really need to travel, I don't really need to buy books and clothes and relatively expensive foods. Obviously Bill Gates has a lot more he could do without, though.
ReplyDeleteYou've articulated really well why I always feel a little off reading about the latest celebrity philanthropy spree. Another aspect of celebrity giving that makes me slightly put-off is the publicity surrounding generous donations. Of course, I don't know any of these people personally, so I have no idea whether, for example, Bill Gates is the type of person to donate primarily for the attention, or if the attention is just lavished onto him because he's famous and enjoys acts of charity, but just the fact that he does gain considerably from charity is problematic in some respects. (This is somewhat related to your figure about personal donations in December -- people, I'm sure, are affected by the holiday spirit, but some of them are also motivated during this month because they want to squeeze in a tax deduction. Even though I'm by no means saying that people should stop giving to charity, knowing that does cast a slight shadow on my admiration for people who donate.)
ReplyDeleteI actually think about stuff like this quite a bit. Part of me realizes that no matter the motivation for donating to a charitable cause, it does help someone. But the other half of me also wonders how much more they could donate. This comes to mind quite a bit with athletes. In the NFL, the minimum salary is somewhere around $200,000 - $300,000. Thats an obscene amount of money already, and thats the minimum! I do think it should be an obligation for all people to give a certain percentage of their money to a charitable cause, except is it really charity if its forced? Isn't the purpose of charity to do a kind thing from one human to another? To give to those less fortunate to you out of the goodness of your heart? I don't know. I think it is a fantastic moral debate.
ReplyDelete