Our Billionaire Philanthropists

[OneGrassRoot]

11. I agree...definitions are very, very important.

I wish we could discuss them more often, because words often mean different things to different people, so solving issues is very difficult when we're not on the same page about verbiage.



This may go off on tangents, so please bear with me as I attempt to answer your question.

The definition of philanthropy is a desire to "benefit the welfare of others." Like so many words, I think the perception of the word philanthropy has morphed over time.

I don't consider millionaire/billionaire philanthropy in the same category as that of the average person. Many average citizens do contribute their time, money and resources with the primary intention of benefiting the welfare of others (human, animals, the environment, etc.) I don't believe that can be said about many of the wealthiest among us.

My point was that if the good deed/giving is done with the primary intention of it benefiting the person GIVING in some concrete way (tax exemption..$$$$), rather than the primary intention being to benefit OTHERS -- the true definition of philanthropy -- that is a problem, as I see it.

Even if the recipients benefit along the way, I believe the selfish overriding intention being financial is a systemic problem that manifests in many ways. Until those with resources recognize the concept of The Common Good and truly benefiting the welfare of others -- and how they and their loved ones also benefit by helping others -- the obscene wealth inequality and injustice will continue. (Sure, the wealthy can live in gated communities which separate themselves from some of society's ills, but if a disease outbreak occurs due to lack of proper healthcare for the general population, unless they live in a bubble, they and their loved ones are also potentially affected.)

You wrote: I give over 500 hours a year to wildlife rehabilitation/education organization. I also give cash and equipment. If you ask me why, it's not because I want to help people. I want to help animals and I want to change the world and people's minds and hearts so they stop trashing the planet. The time I give a humanist legal organization has nothing to do with wanting to help others - I calculated that I had to give some time to that side of the equation. If I can't get people to stop being shitty to each other I had no hope of getting them to stop being shitty to animals. If humans died out tomorrow, I'd call it a victory.

So, am I being charitable? Am I being philanthropic? Do I deserve a tax deduction for my expenses and contributions? Keep in mind that I am a small giver - a drop of water in an ocean if you will.

Well, you present an interesting question indeed! I need to sit with this to really clarify how I feel, but here are my initial thoughts.

I still view what you are doing as genuinely philanthropic and charitable. It's not about YOU benefiting financially from the time, resources and money you give. That's not your focus or intention in doing what you do. You're offering your time, resources and money to help animals and the environment. Of course, when any of the issues we believe in and donate to are successful, it obviously helps us as residents on this planet.

More and more people recognize that it's all connected, therefore helping others (including helping animals and the environment itself) IS ultimately helping ourselves. I suppose we can get into a discussion of semantics about what is selfish, but hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

I hear what you're saying about the human species and the pain and suffering we inflict upon other humans and other life forms. Trust me...I really hear you. I think your fairly inflammatory comment that "If humans died out tomorrow, I'd call it a victory" takes away from the topic at hand.

When I say "helping others," I don't limit helping to only human beings. I see everything as connected. We're each drawn to different issues about which we choose to invest our time and energy -- and if we have it, money.

So, yes, I see you as charitable and philanthropic, because you are not doing so in a greedy or selfish way. And, if you benefit from it with a tax exemption, that's fine, because that is secondary, not your primary reason for doing what you're doing. I don't believe that's the case with many millionaires/billionaires.

I will also say this: I personally thinks it's a good thing when we recognize a need and want to be of service to any issue or cause. But to want to help one life form while simultaneously hoping another is destroyed is counterproductive.

I'm not trying to be all Pollyanna or anything like that. I simply genuinely believe everything is connected.

Hope this makes sense.