In class today we talked a lot about
Jeff Bezos’ donation (or lack thereof) to a philanthropic cause. The New York
Times article we had to read today provided many other suggestions of ways
Bezos could use his money, ranging from purchasing mosquito nets to permanently
doubling the National Cancer Institute’s budget. This had me asking a few
questions.
The first question is, do the wealthy
have an obligation to be philanthropic and donate their wealth? If so, how much
is the appropriate amount of their wealth to allocate to charities? I
personally do not believe that there is an “appropriate amount” of money one
should donate, but I do believe it is important that those with influence use
it for good. In the discussion today many students, including myself, expressed
their disappointment in Bezos as he has a massive amount of money and is only
sharing a trivial fraction of it (it was mentioned that his $2B donation is the
equivalent to an average American family/household donating $1,170 a year).
While Bezos is not legally obligated to spend his money a certain way, is he
morally obligated to do so?
In contrast to Bezos, Bill and Melinda
Gates’ dedication to philanthropy is endless and constantly growing without
having public pressure. A quote that stood out to me from the TED talk was
about the Gates kids and their upbringing. After an endearing story about a
girl wanting to keep Jenn’s lamp so she could study at night, Melinda said “our
family belief is about responsibility, that we are in an unbelievable situation
just to live in the United States and have a great education, and we have a
responsibility to get back to the world.” The Gates’ attitude regarding helping
others is one I find moving and believe more people should have. Not only do
they truly understand their privilege, but they are also using their privilege
to positively impact others who are not as fortunate.
This brings me to my second question.
What is the best way to be philanthropic? If the wealthy have an obligation,
how should they help others with their wealth? The Gates’ foundation donates
money to initiatives like education and technology, and the Gates family
themselves go around the world physically helping those in need. But as brought
up in class, if a CEO like Bezos were to give his employees more benefits like
health insurance and higher pay, would that be classified as philanthropy? He
would be positively impacting those in need, which is why I believe it may be
classified as such, but I am curious to hear what everyone else thinks.
Hi Lexi! I appreciate that you decided to focus your blog comment on the debate we had in class, allowing further discussion. I agree with what many people were saying in class, that Jeff Bezos has a significant amount of money that no person could possibly spend in their lifetime. But I don't know if he should be obligated to use it in a certain way. Something that this debate reminds me of is whether schools should make community service mandatory. We have discussed that simply donating your time is a form of philanthropy, so I think this can be used as an appropriate comparison. Proponents of mandated community service feel that some students would not have taken the initiative themselves, and they find that many students start to enjoy volunteering and complete more hours than were required. However, some people think that mandating the community services means it is no longer voluntary and therefore it loses some of its value. They think the kids should be taught to do good and as a result they may choose to volunteer on their own. Now I stand somewhere in the middle. I see the validity of both arguments; requiring that students complete a set amount of hours of community service does take some of the meaning out of it, but I also agree that many students would have volunteered by their own will. In an article I read from The New York Times regarding mandated community service on Long Island they mention that for some school districts it just isn't reasonable to expect the students to volunteer, they need to have real paying jobs instead. Now to tie this back into the conversation about Jeff Bezos, if it is required that he donate some fraction of his money is it really philanthropy anymore? Yes, he could do so much good, but it is taking his own free will out of it. Many people are critical of his reusable rockets because they think there are better ways he can help society, but this is what he decided to do, and I think he has the right to that while he is alive. I specified that he can use his money how he wants while he is alive because this is where I think we may be able to make some change. Once he passes, there is this abundance of money, some will go to family members, but there is just so much of it. I don't know if this is even possible, but maybe we can require that if you have over a certain amount of money when you die, a fraction of it should go to help people. This may be a dumb idea, and I am sure many people will think it is not fair because it is still technically his money, but I think this is a better solution than requiring the wealthy to donate their money because it may not go where it is needed most, as stated in another article I read from City Lab. I'm not sure if this fully answered either of your questions, but these are just some thoughts I had following yesterday's class discussion.
ReplyDeleteThis is the New York Times article that discusses mandatory community service on Long Island:
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/nyregion/the-logic-of-mandatory-volunteerism.html
I mentioned this article very briefly, but it goes into how wealthy people often times give money to places that are already well funded, such as Central Park, and that the money from places like this should be distributed to the smaller places that are more in need. It also discusses how cities are becoming more involved in the philanthropic process themselves and it has had great results so far. I found it interesting so I encourage reading the full article.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/11/the-problem-with-urban-philanthropy/546860/
Lexi,
ReplyDeleteFirst off allow me to commend you on a very well written and thought provoking article. I feel that your topic is a variation of the discussion that seems to keep on reappearing. How does one make the biggest difference in the philanthropic world? As we have gone over, there is no simple answer to this question. The matter differs from person to person and is based on what they feel comfortable giving and such. This makes it difficult to determine what is not enough, too much, or just right to give. It makes it even more difficult when the donor in question has a great deal of wealth.
Nobody can really tell someone what to do with their hard earned money, nor can they tell them how much they should give. But more importantly, if we have to put social pressure on the person to donate, then it is no longer charity. The person is no longer giving from the heart or head, they are giving because they feel obligated to do so. This is not how charity is meant to be. Donors should donate however much they want and make it matter to them.
So, if someone like Jeff Bezos simply portioned off a certain amount of money each year and distributed it randomly, it is not true charity. Sure, his large amounts of money would make a huge difference, but his lack of empathy and thought takes away from the true meaning of charity. Similarly, if he gives more or less than he is comfortable with, then the whole point of charity is again lost. As we have discussed, charity is something that should truly move the donor and make them feel like they are making a meaningful difference in the life of someone who deserves it. I suppose in my opinion the point is whether you are rich or not, philanthropy is something that comes from inside, and that other people should have no affect on.
Also, philanthropy does not always need to involve a charity or a donation of a large sum of money. As you proposed, if Mr. Bezos were to provide all of his employees with healthcare or increased benefits, I do believe this would be a philanthropic action.
That being said, I would like to propose a question. How much do you think that wealthy people of Jeff Bezos and The Gates’ class should give in terms of charity? Should it be some percentage of the yearly income? Or should it be a late rate for all to make it fair?
Great work!
-Thomas Houghton
Hey Lexi,
ReplyDeleteI first want to remark that your post is very well-written and poses a set of significant questions. Of course, it is tremendously difficult to imagine the massive amounts of wealth that billionaires have. Most of the wealth in this world is contained within the top 1%. In the case of Jeff Bezos, he is currently the richest person in the world. Bezos has accumulated a net worth of approximately $137 billion, as of January 2019.
In my opinion, I do not think that the wealthy have an obligation to donate their wealth. The simple fact of the matter is that it is their money. No one can legally obligate someone to donate wealth that they have earned. If it were to be as such, I would consider that both unfair and immoral. How much Bezos chooses to donate or even give away is his prerogative. He, along with any of these other billionaires, have the right to choose the amount to share. If they choose to donate either 1% of their wealth or 50% of their wealth, they are still a philanthropist.
I feel that in this post you are comparing Bezos and Gates regarding their philanthropic action. I want to push this comparison a little farther, but in the other direction. These numbers come mainly from a CNN article I read, with some of my own research. In 2018, Bezos donated $2 billion, while having amassed a net worth of approximately $130 billion. Bill Gates donated $138 million, while having amassed a net worth of approximately $90 billion. Because they are both billionaires, I do not find a significant difference between the sums that they both make; however, if we consider the percentage of their net worth that is being donated, Bezos contributes much more than Gates. So, it could be said then that Bezos is donating more in the non-profit sector than Gates, yet Gates is generally regarded as one of the top philanthropists. Why is that?
Bezos is also not morally obligated to donate his money. As I stated before, it is his money—money that he has worked for and has earned through his success. People do argue that Bezos does mistreat his workers; and that while Bezos is amassing all this wealth, those who work for his company do not enjoy it. I do want to remark that, according to amazon.jobs, Amazon workers make $15 an hour, have access to health insurance, and ability for maternity or paternity leave, to name a few benefits. I do believe that the company treats the workers fairly. Related to this, I feel that there is a difference between criticizing someone and attacking someone. People have the right to be upset at Bezos about how he chooses to donate his money, but they have no right to publicly attack or condemn him for it. If Bezos is attacked, he will probably feel pressure to donate more of his wealth toward other causes, but it is completely unjust to attack him for his actions. He is still a philanthropist, and an important one at that.
My last point will be brief, as I realize this response has become quite long. I do not think there is a “best way” to be philanthropic. Everyone holds different values and beliefs about doing good, and these will be reflected in the way one chooses to be philanthropic. Whether it be by raising the wages of workers, donating money to educational reform, or investing in new non-profits, people are still choosing to make a difference in the world which is commendable. Philanthropy is subjective, and as such cannot be defined in a specific way. In the case of billionaires, of course it would be nice to see them donate more of their wealth, but at the end of the day, it is their money and because of that have the final say on how to best use it.
For reference:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/26/tech/jeff-bezos-philanthropy-trnd/index.html
https://www.amazon.jobs/en/benefits
Hi Lexi,
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of your positions on this topic! Most importantly, I agree with the fact that the wealthy have a moral obligation to donate. I understand why some other people in the comments might disagree, as capitalism in and of itself allows people to become self-made, that their money is theirs to keep and spend as they please. However, for someone like Jeff Bezos, a person who’s amassed an excessive amount of wealth, it would be in his favor to donate. Not only would it be much more beneficial for the organization than it would be sitting in his bank account, but it would also be incredibly good press.
I was also confused that when he was eventually inclined to donate that it was to the homeless and to early education. Though good causes, they seemed a bit general and I could not see how they were important to him; it seemed almost as though he was donating just because he had to.
Jeff Bezos is the son of a teenage mother and his step-father is an immigrant. Wouldn’t it seem that there are more opportunities to donate to causes more near and dear to his heart? There are many well-established organizations that support young women struggling with raising a child and charities helping immigrants. Overall, I hope that Jeff Bezos does end up participating in philanthropy more, and take this chance to give to organizations that he feels most passionately about.
For reference: https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-richest-person-modern-history-spends-on-charity-2018-7
https://www.biography.com/people/jeff-bezos-9542209
-Sara Baldwin
Lexi,
ReplyDeleteI think that a lot of the questions that you bring up about philanthropy such as the moral obligation to be philanthropic and how much/when to donate are very difficult questions that people literally spend their lives working out. Before taking this class I used to think it was silly when people would call themselves "professional" philanthropists because it seemed like a fancy way of saying you're rich and retired with nothing to do. I now realize that there is a lot that goes into philanthropy and I can easily imagine someone with millions or billions of dollars spending their time figuring out who to donate to. For example, Bill Gates created an entire foundation with his wife and spends all day researching problems and trying to find the best place to spend his money.
I believe the process that we are going through in this class - analyzing organizations, selecting finalists, gathering information and eventually choosing a recipient - is a very similar process to philanthropy that billionaires like Bill Gates take, just on a smaller scale. Donating ten thousand dollars is a task that will take us an entire semester: If Bill Gates spent that much time on each ten thousand he gives away, donating all of his money would take millions of years. So after taking part in the philanthropy process, it is understandable that a millionaire could have a full time job giving money away.
Maybe this is the reason that Jeff Bezos hasn't donated as much money as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or other billionaires. Jeff Bezos isn't retired and is still the acting CEO of Amazon. I think it is possible that Bezos is waiting until he has more time to properly take part in the philanthropy process. (He has indicated that he plans on donating more of his wealth in the future - https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/10/16/how-the-giving-habits-of-the-super-rich-are-changing/#710f733b8349). While it's fine to judge Bezos for not being more generous, I think it's difficult to be a philanthropist while running one of the largest companies of the world.
-Adiel Felsen
Hi Lexi,
ReplyDeleteI really like your blog comment. Good job! When I first read your post I started thinking of the question, “What to we owe to one another?” I put on my philosophy hat. When I Googled that question, I realized that it wasn’t something that I read in a philosophy class but on the TV show The Good Place (I also talked about in a philosophy class).
So to look at your question, “Should philanthropy be an obligation?” from a different lense, “What do we owe to one another?” changes the idea a little bit. Do we owe to each other to be helpful when others need it? Do we owe to each other to spread kindness and generosity?
The other part of your question that is tricky for me is the word, “obligation.” To be obligate to do anything doesn’t usually equate with generosity for me. Philanthropy should stem from a place of generosity and willingness to care for your fellow wo/man.
Philanthropy shouldn’t be an obligation because no one should feel under any pressure to help others. I know that sounds naive but I’d like to believe people act in a way where they benefit the same way as those who they help. The golden rule is to treat people the way you would like to be treated. With this in mind, I think people should feel it necessary to exist in a way in which they help each other if they can, not quite an obligation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9inXtRUtOA This is a video entitled “What do we owe each other?” which talks a little bit about political philosophy and moral obligations. Also, watch The Good Place; it’s on Netflix & Hulu and will probably make you laugh and feel good about humanity.
Hi Lexi,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post. It had me thinking very much about what I would do in Bezos' or the Gates' position (aka, having a lot of money and how that pertains to philanthropy).
One thing I've learned from personal experience is that you shouldn't let other people tell you what to do nor should they influence your decisions. If you want to/not want to something, or want to/not want to do something, because it is YOUR life, not theirs. However, I find myself having to add an "exception" clause into that saying with this belief. Jeff Bezos should not be forced to donate his money. Imagine someone telling you "you have to put 5% of your paycheck every week and put it towards something." Some families do need that 5% to make it by.
However, Jeff Bezos makes a lot more money than all of us, even combined. Will he realistically use all of that money in his lifetime? Probably not, nor would his kids, nor his grandchildren, and so on and so forth. It's at this point, when you are making a ridiculous amount of money in your lifetime, that you should donate your money to causes. Many rich people are philanthropic, like the Gates family, celebrities, and pro athletes. They donate to causes that they feel strongly towards, as well as people that might need it. One example that put a smile on my face was a recent twitter exchange between Chad Ochocinco- a former NFL player- and a random twitter user; by the end of the exchange, Ochocinco, knowing nothing about the random twitter user, ended up covering his month's rent so he can avoid eviction.
Another issue with trying to suggest philanthropy should be an obligation is that Jeff Bezos can give in and end up donating a lot of money, but it's completely up to him where to donate it to. He could donate it to someone/something that may not need it, which is what makes obligating people to donate difficult.
Making philanthropy an obligation would take away the purpose of philanthropy. The definition of "philanthropy" is "the desire to promote welfare in others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes." The key word is "desire", as philanthropists WANT to donate to good causes. Should people, especially those with much more money than what they could think to do with, donate their money to organizations and groups that need it? Of course! But the point of philanthropy is to want to make a difference and help others. We can't help it that Jeff Bezos doesn't want to donate, but it would sure help those who need it if he wanted to.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out with Jeff Bezos. I believe that he will end up giving in to the public criticizing his lack of philanthropy and donate somewhere.
- Matthew Sturm