Up to this point in Philanthropy, we have been plagued by several difficult questions: ranging from what is the best approach to giving, to who should the finalists for the grants be, these questions have tested our morals and values, promoted discussion, and challenged us. However, I do want to pose another difficult question that I feel underlies the concepts of philanthropy and of this class: what does it mean to be good? Or in other words, what does it mean to be a good person? This is a question I always reflect on, as understanding my concept of “good” allows me to be a better philanthropist and a better person. How I define this idea of “good” can be and most likely is different from other’s definitions; but no matter how it is defined, it is important to be able to define it.
I read an article published on Huffington Post entitled “Here’s What It Means to Be a Good Person, Gosh Darnit.” I found this article while I was doing some research on this idea of “goodness.” The purpose of this article is to highlight various ways in which people define what a good person is. Some definitions included: “doing the right thing…having a conscience and listening to it…simply someone who tries not to be a bad person.” The reason I used this article to support this blog post is that it shows varying definitions of what being a good person is: which leads to the implications that people view themselves as a good person in different ways. This central idea of being good—which lays the foundation for philanthropy—can range, which is beneficial to the selfless nature of humans. If everyone held the same definitions, there would be a lack of diversity in both being good and as a result, being philanthropic. How would you define being a good person? Is it someone who holds virtues, who holds morals? Is it someone who is not self-absorbed? Is it someone who chooses to donate money?
I define a good person simply as: someone who puts others before themselves. It is the lack of selfishness; rather, it is the abundance of selflessness. I believe that those who are good truly do love to help others; doing good means that you are contributing to society in a positive way by helping at least one person out. One reason why I think this way is because I hold the value that every person is a good person. Every person has morals, every person has feelings—and if you are good, then that means you have the ability to do good. It is the experiences one undergoes that may alter their conception of what being good is, but everyone is inherently good. It is something you are born with and that never leaves you. Though one’s conceptions of “good” may differ from someone else’s, it is essential for it to be that way to help others to a much greater extent.
While definitions of “good” can differ, I do wonder if we can put a value on “goodness.” What do I mean by this? I mean, is it possible for someone to do more good than others? Does donating more money, for example, than someone else make you a better person? Can we group everyone together who chooses to do good? I do not think that we should measure the amount of “good” that people do; in other words, it is not possible to compare a 100-dollar donation to a 10-dollar donation. Maybe that person who donated 10 dollars only had 11 dollars, while the person who donated 100 dollars had 300 dollars. It is already an admirable thing to choose to help others; there are not different levels of being a good person. If you are a good person, you are a good person. There are also inherent values behind helping others that are not measurable: satisfaction is one that I believe cannot be put on a scale. The point of what I am saying is that the amount of “good” you do or the rate at which you do it does not matter—the only thing that matters is that you chose to do something in the first place.
To conclude, I want everyone to realize that once you truly understand what being a good person is (or what doing good is), you can be a much more effective philanthropist. Being able to understand the principles that underlie philanthropy is essential to being that much better at doing it.
This is an extremely intriguing approach to how to be a good philanthropist that I had not previously thought. Although, after hearing your explanation about the benefits that diversity in philanthropy provides, it begins to make a lot more sense. If everyone held the same values all donations and philanthropic initiatives would be focused on fixing the same problems, while other areas of need would fall by the wayside. Mayumi's blog post about arts & culture deserving more respect is a prime example of why diversity in doing good is a necessary component. If everyone had Bill Gates outlook on arts & culture it would see no funding and institutions like museums, observatories, and theaters would fall into disuse.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your sentiments that once everyone finds their own definition of what it means to do good that they will become more effective philanthropists. I personally find myself believing that being a "good person" relates to just doing what you can to make the world a better place. Everyone should be encouraged to do good; Although I do believe there is a difference in simply doing good and maximizing the good done. Maximizing the good you do involves having an awareness of your surroundings and others. This type of awareness in a philanthropic sense would be to realize and donate to timely causes, due to certain issues fading in and out of prevalence.
This question is not one that I expected to read in the class blog. It is a unique approach to the challenges that we as a class are facing and I appreciate that. The definition of good is something that we should take into consideration while evaluating the choices we have left in our class decision. I agree with your thoughts on the subjective nature of the term “good”. Everyone grows up in a unique environment, even siblings. I do not believe that any two people see “good” the same because I feel it is impossible.
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea of people having different opinions of what is good is also incredible because of the point brought up by Connor in his comment. The fact that everyone defines the term “good” in a different way allows people to impact different parts of society by following their unique values. This is incredibly beneficial to society and proof of this idea has been demonstrated by what we have seen in class so far. The list of organizations that sent in the form to be considered for donations consists of an incredible variety of types of establishments. The categories we have reviewed range from childcare, education, health, and the arts. This variation in mission and focus is part of what makes the nonprofit sector so important and impactful.
Although I do agree with much of what you think about the relationship between being good and being a philanthropist, I do not agree with the assertion that all people are good. I think that everyone definitely has their own definition of what being good means, but that some people have a definition for good in their mind and then oppose it. This makes me hesitant to focus on what my emotions tell me to consider in regard to our decision in class. I feel it is more important to understand long term effectiveness than it is the process of being good when donating to an organization. Whether this be to protect against people who have bad intentions with potential donations or just to choose a recipient that will do the best with the money, I believe that for our purposes understanding what a good nonprofit organization outweighs understanding of what a good person is.
Dear Ryan,
ReplyDeleteFirst off allow me to say that I think this is a fantastic question to ask. It is extremely similar to the question of whether a donation to a small charity is better than to a big charity. It is simply one of these questions that had no right or wrong answer. Rather, it’s a question that makes you think about all the possibilities. Everyone might have different answers, and that makes it so much more interesting.
Personally, I agree with you. I feel that being “good” has no single correct definition. However, it is just something is that a person knows or instinctively feels. Good can’t be defined by any one specific action. In my opinion, really anything that is done to help your fellow member of the human race makes you a good person. It doesn’t really matter if it was completely for their benefit, or for both of your benefits. All that matters is that you were willing to lend a helping hand. I think that is a huge factor in determining what can be classified as good and what can’t.
I also feel very strongly that good can’t be quantitatively measured. No amount of money or number of deeds makes any one person more good than another. If someone acts in a selfless and conscious manner, then they are good. Additionally, I feel that being good is more of a personal thing. If someone is truly good, they won’t care about how other people view them. As long as they do things they feel are good, and they feel that they are a good person, that’s all that matters.
One question I would like to propose is this; can someone still be a good person if they only perform charitable actions so that others will notice? If they are too concerned with what others think, and their intentions are tainted, do their actions have as much of an effect as those of someone who does good for themselves?
Great work!
-Thomas Houghton
This blog post is an interesting point of view on something that penetrates even deeper than the study of philanthropy itself. The definition of good is more connotative than denotative, and each person does seem to have their own opinion of the definition. While this is a great moral question of human behavior, in the philanthropic sense, being good can mean many things. Like you said, Ryan, being good is often shown through charitable giving. In the sense that the value of the donation is unimportant without consideration for the income of the person, I am in complete agreement. As we read, some billionaires are earning money at such a rapid rate that the money they give to charity is replaced a time and a half by the money they are getting from their businesses.
ReplyDeleteI do have to disagree that all people are good, though. I speak from experience. I have interacted with many people, and I have seen that some people are too self-centered and sometimes are just too plain mean to care about others. Others donate only because it gives them a good image. Jeff Bezos has kept his money for years and years and has recently decided to donate amidst surrounding pressure. Even then his donation will benefit causes that seem to be long-term investments for his name and possibly even his company (imagine how much Amazon would like to participate in space business). He, for example, might be the type of person who is acting in a good way, but does not really have the right intentions, so he would not be good by my definition of the word.
Additionally, thinking about good cannot be something that is characterized by some sort of duality of good versus everything else outside the circle of good. Even branching off this idea, people are not so rigid either. People change throughout their lives. I have said that I have met are not, by my definition, good people, but that does not mean that they can be touched in a way that changes their perspective and drives them to be good from their heart. Similarly, good people can be corroded and turned to bad. Philanthropically, it is always considered good to have people donating, but it is even more meaningful when these people are not doing it to meet their quota of “did my part to help others” for the week/month/year. These people may be doing good, but I think it is an improperly assumed correlation between goodness and charity, because while every person is putting in their dollars, each person has a different reason. While many of these reasons are good, it is also important to remember that some people donate for reasons aside from a desire to do so in their heart, and it might be too much of a stretch to really call these people good too.
Hi Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI think "good" is a really subjective and ever-changing term. I remember being corrected on my grammar when I was young when I said that I wanted to “do good on a test.” My teacher would always say, “Superman does good, you want to do well.”
Doing good sometimes means not doing harm. Doing good could also mean helping those who need help. I also don’t think it’s anyone’s business to say if someone else is a good person or not. I agree with you that being selfless is a good trait to possess, however, I don’t know if being selfless equates to good. Sometimes you need to be self-interested to get you to a point that you want to be at.
I don’t necessarily think every philanthropist is a good person. The motivations behind monetary donations and other volunteer work are what matter. Don’t get me wrong, I think if you are sacrifice portions of your treasure, you are being generous but I think the “good” comes with the motivations behind it. I once read an article about the idea of tainted altruism; basically it involves using charity as a means to an ends, not the ends itself. When I was in National Honor Society in high school, a lot of members would only participate in the events so they could say they were members of NHS to put on their college applications and so they could get the cord and walk with the group at graduation. A lot of these actions weren’t genuine and I have/had a problem with that.
I’m happy to learn in this class that philanthropy goes further than dollar donations. It makes philanthropy a lot more accessible to people who don’t have $10, $100, or $1,000 to donate. The people that are trying their best to help others are good.
I personally would define being a “good” person as leaving the world a better place than how you found it. If you identify your values and you live through them, I think you can say that you’re a good person.
Tainted altrusim journal: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797613504785
The question that this post raises is not an easy subject and I'm not sure that there is a correct answer at all! The question of "what does it mean to be good?" seems to have a large personal aspect to it; I agree with your statement that every person will have a slightly different definition of a "good" person and I believe it is important that we do.
ReplyDeleteThe one area that I disagree with is that all people are "good". I believe that all people are born with the potential to be "good" people, but I do not believe that everyone lives up to this potential. Some people do not maintain their "goodness".
Additionally, I don't think that all people who do not donate a portion of their wealth are not "good". Some people may choose to donate their time instead of their money. Others may not be able to donate their money. Some may not donate time or money because they have not been exposed to philanthropy. Even if someone makes the conscious choice to not partake in philanthropic activities, they may still be a "good person" based solely off of their attitude and bahavior that they carry throughout life. My definition of a "good person" is someone who not only has, but maintains and acts on their morals.
Hey Stephanie,
DeleteI do also believe that every person is born “good.” I would argue against the idea that people do not maintain their “goodness” though. I believe that “goodness” is never lost. However, one’s perception of what “goodness” may be could change over time, and it could change because of one’s own experiences. If one used to think that being “good” meant volunteering three times a week at a soup kitchen and now believes that being “good” means donating a dollar a month to that same soup kitchen, then that is okay. That dollar can still contribute something to the soup kitchen and help the soup kitchen reach its goals.
On the reverse side, is it necessarily wrong to define being “good” as something that many others may perceive as a bad act? In the case of Bezos, I’m sure that many people do not agree with how he chooses to use his money, as evident from our previous class discussions. However, does that make him any less of a “good” person? Ideally, donating to space exploration is not what one would believe to be the best use of one’s money, but if Bezos believes it to be, then there is nothing wrong with that. We should not be judging someone based off to whom or where they choose to donate. We should be judging people based on if they choose to do something at all with their money, time, or efforts. And if we judge Bezos based on those criteria, then he is no less of a “good” person than someone like Gates. Space exploration can and will contribute to society in a positive way in the future, and it should be respected that Bezos has chosen to help fund that cause.
I did want to touch on one of your comments to end. You say that you do not think that people who do not donate a portion of their wealth are not “good.” I completely agree with that. Especially because of this class that we are taking, I have learned that philanthropy can be and is so much more than strictly giving money to some place. I very much do like your definition of what a “good” person is. Some people may not have the time, money, or ability to partake in good deeds. However, if they do maintain a mindset of being philanthropic and helping others out, then they can also be considered “good.” It kind of adds onto my idea that everyone has morals and values. If these values coincide with a “good” mindset that one has, then that also makes them a “good” person.
(The comment above is from Ryan Kani)
DeleteHi Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI found your post to be very interesting, and think that it poses a very important question. The question of what defines being good has been one I’ve thought about for awhile. I agree with your definition that being a good person involves a great degree of selflessness. I also believe that if you are actively trying to help others and put others before yourself, that that can define you as a good person. However, I do not think, that that is the only part of being good. I also think a large part of being good is having a set of core beliefs and values that you hold to a high importance. That these values largely impact the way you live your life, and these values also involve helping others and bettering your community. I also believe that what makes someone good is someone who tries to recruit other people to help do more good. I think what is important too, is that when you do things that you consider make you a good person, you do them because you genuinely want to do them, and that you fully believe in what you are doing. Not that you are doing something to be perceived as good by other people. Rather, what other people think about you should be irrelevant, and you should be doing good without the expectation of recognition from others.
Your post also reminded me of a concept I was taught while taking a class freshman year taught by Professor Campbell. In this class, Professor Campbell posed the question to us of what it meant to do good well. I had never thought that there could be difference in degrees of doing good. I assumed that all good deeds were mostly equal. However, what I learned is that this is far from the truth, and that there are indeed ways to do good to different capcities. I think that this idea can have a large carryover to our class and the decision for the finalists. For our class it could be potentially mean seeing which organizations will have the largest impact upon the community. Or which of our finalists most adequately addresses a prevalent problem in the community. Doing good well can also have a different definition for every individual. However, I think it is an important concept to understand for our class that while doing any good is good, some good can have more of an impact and than other forms. I think this idea of doing good well, along with your post questioning what makes a person good, are two helpful insights that our class can implement while deciding on the final organization to donate our money to.
- Matt Rozansky
Ryan-
DeleteI would be very interested to hear your thoughts on our conversation we had in class Tuesday regarding Jeff Bezos and his apparent reluctance to donate part of his fortune. You wrote that the amount of good should be disregarded (as it is hard to fit "goodness" to a scale) and that what truly matters is helping others in the first place. However, as we discussed in class today, Jeff Bezos is using a portion of his fortune to donate to space exploration and fund re-usable rockets. While he is helping others (a very, very small population of people- maybe), he could be doing so much more, as we read about in the Huffington post article and discussed in class.
We also touched on the exploitation of warehouse and shipment center employees and how Bezos really has no excuse for unfair wages, combatting unionization, and poor benefits for his workers. Would this disregard for employees, the exact group of people that helped him amass this wealth, perhaps speak to his "goodness" as a person? I agree with and like your definition of what it means to be a good person, and with your statement that an effective philanthropist is able to understand what it means to be a good person. I would like to think that Mr. Bezos is a good person, however his relatively questionable philanthropic and business choices almost make me wonder how "good" he really is. Looking through a more critical lens, I don’t think Jeff Bezos is good, however I don’t believe that he is necessarily bad. I think he makes morally questionable choices but I do believe that deep down maybe he’s good? (I mean I don’t know him personally). I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
-Chloe
Hey Chloe,
DeleteI did touch on my thoughts about Bezos on Lexi’s blog post, but I can answer some questions that you are asking here. I also, to an extent, will expand on my ideas about Bezos. I don’t know if I would say that Bezos is reluctant to donate his wealth. Last year, he donated $2 billion to help the homeless and help establish a concrete network of schools. He has previously donated to space exploration, and I’m sure he has donated to other causes. It seems to me that he is very willing to donate his money. Bezos could be doing much more with his money, but is it acceptable to judge him for how he spends his money? He has his accumulated his wealth because of his hard work and success, and how he chooses to give back to society is his prerogative. Space exploration, for example, is something that he believes should be invested in. There’s nothing wrong with that. Funding space exploration could very well be useful for the future, but we wouldn’t necessarily know unless it is funded. Bezos seems to want to donate to causes that help look to the future, and I see nothing wrong with that.
I would like to see statistics, proof, or something that support this idea that Bezos has exploited his workers. According to Amazon, workers receive many benefits, some of which include a livable wage and health insurance. I have a friend who works for an Amazon warehouse and he has told me that it is a pretty good place to work. Though a bit stressful at times, he likes the benefits and he likes the job. I feel that people may be under the assumption that because Bezos is so wealthy, he cares very little for those that work for him. Bezos seems to be a good person and seems to care for the workers. If we were to compare how Amazon workers are treated to how Walmart workers are treated, there is a vast difference. I can attest that working at Walmart is awful, as I worked there for several months as a cashier. From my understanding, working at Amazon is a rewarding job; and though it may not be a great long-term job, it provides a good foundation for a permanent job.
While Bezos’ choices can be and are heavily questioned, I don’t think that makes him any less of a “good” person. Perhaps his philanthropy is not everyone’s cup of tea, but it should be admired that he chooses to donate a large amount of money at all. He doesn’t have to do anything with his wealth. While $2 billion seems to be such a small portion of his wealth, what $2 billion can provide is tremendous. Perhaps his philanthropic choices don’t work out in the end. That’s okay, as I believe that philanthropy to an extent is trial and error. One may support a newly established foundation and donate all their wealth there, but what happens if that foundation crashes? What if the foundation ends up not using the money in a good way? Does that make someone a less “good” person? Not at all. I don’t know if I quite understand why you think Bezos isn’t all that good. He is a philanthropist on the same scale as Gates or Buffett; maybe not necessarily for the amount that he chooses to donate, but for the desire to do “good” at all.
I apologize, I forgot to link something. It could be found in Lexi's blog post, but I will also link it here. It is the Amazon Jobs website, and it lists benefits that the workers receive. https://www.amazon.jobs/en/benefits
Delete(The two comments above are from Ryan Kani.)
Delete