There's an old saying that money cannot buy happiness, or even love as The Beatles put it. If a person had the chance to ask others if this is true, the majority would answer as “yes.” However, what if people can actually use their money to buy happiness? I recently saw a TED Talk by Michael Norton and agreed that this makes sense and can be done.
The most common definition of philanthropy is “the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.” Thinking about the core values and the true meaning behind philanthropy, this definition has major flaws to it. Our society is shaped to believe that the concept of philanthropy is limited to donating money to “good causes,” especially towards organizations that a person wholeheartedly believes in. Worldwide, multi-millionaires or billionaires are considered philanthropists, including Bill and Melinda Gates and Jeff Bezos. This is not the case. Philanthropy is a very malleable definition, where a person who donates their time or spends their money on someone else can be considered as a philanthropist.
Philanthropy does not stop to just donating money to an organization. “The desire to promote the welfare of others” can extend to being caring or generous to the people around you. Spending your own money for someone else, whether it is for a friend or a co-worker, is part of the definition. This can be as simple as buying someone dinner or a classmate a cup of coffee. This lead to much greater happiness than self-indulgence. Five dollars were given to students on a college campus and coffee was bought from the nearest Starbucks. Some bought it for themselves while others bought it for a friend. Those who bought it for someone else lead to happiness and meaningful thoughts, while nothing happened to those who bought it for themselves. Simply put, “spending on other people has a bigger return for you than spending on yourself.”
So, can money buy happiness? If you spend your money right, absolutely. If you have money in your pocket, do not think about what you can buy, rather how you can do good for others with what you have. This is the true meaning of philanthropy. It is not all about donating hundreds or millions of dollars to an organization you believe in. Philanthropy starts with the people around you.
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_norton_how_to_buy_happiness?language=en
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_norton_how_to_buy_happiness?language=en
This TED talk reminds me a little bit of the the idea of "paying it forward." I will admit that I do not immediately associate gift-giving with philanthropy, but I do see how it could be considered a type of philanthropy in its most general definition of generosity. While the study does directly pertain to the idea that giving to others brings more happiness than choosing to give to oneself, I do find it a little too assuming to correlate this directly to those who choose to give philanthropically.
ReplyDeleteThere is a certain degree of spontaneity in giving that is lost when a person is given money and is told how to use it. I believe that the "desire" to help, as was the word used in the definition you cited above, is unequivocally the most important factor in giving. Accordingly, I must agree that gift-giving and simple gestures can fall under this wide umbrella of philanthropy, but I have to disagree with the statement that the participants in Michael Norton's study were true philanthropists, as despite having reaped the positive emotional benefits of giving, the intent to give was not organic, but rather it was given to them by an envelope that either said "Spend this money on yourself" or "Spend this money on somebody else."
This is not the only time I think it is possible to confuse true philanthropic giving and a vague disguise of philanthropy. A few people might remember a news story from a few years ago that was manipulated by media outlets to give the illusion of philanthropy. For 11 hours, people on a Starbucks drive-through line paid for the customer behind them. The initial customer who paid-it-forward did, in my opinion, demonstrate philanthropy, but the one thereafter, and all along down the 11 hour line of cars, were not engaging in philanthropy of their own volition, but were actually motivated by the philanthropic action of the first customer, the only one who can be considered to be practicing philanthropy in my opinion.
The sad truth is that the customers on that line were motivated by the chain of giving, and they would not have likely paid for the customer behind them were it not for the initial intervention. This is parallel to the study of giving money to people and then telling them how to spend it. The people in this study could not be assumed to have acted in the same will if they had not been told to already, and they are, therefore, lacking the DESIRE that must be present in order for any action to be called philanthropy. In the brief article on the man who broke this Starbucks chain of giving, customer number 458 who refused to pay it forward says, "When the barista asks you to pay it forward, it is no longer spontaneous," and I have the utmost respect for this opinion and this man's ability to recognize the true absence of philanthropic spirit, especially when it came to the barista's request to have the customers pay for the next customer. Philanthropy should always come from a desire within, and it is my belief that any action not motivated by this innate, deliberate desire to show kindness is not real philanthropy.
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/meet-the-man-who-ended-the-10-hour-starbucks-pay-it-forward-i-had-to-put-an-end-to-it--106360
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteFirst off let me say that this is a very well written post. I like how you open with the contradiction of a statement that most people believe. I also like how you were then able to continue on to expand on what you meant, all while keeping that same persona.
That being said, I would like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you. Many people do many different things in order to make themselves feel good. These things can range from as simple as holding the door for someone, to as complex as donating an organ for someone’s surgery. Giving someone money could be seen as similar to giving someone an organ, in a sense. I agree with the thought that modern philanthropy seems to be centered on giving money instead of time, but that isn’t such a bad thing. Money in today’s world is extremely important to some people, so the act of donating that very important thing has the potential to make someone feel very happy about doing so. It would be the same as a little kid letting someone play with their favorite toy, something that is so very important to them.
Also, I would like to reference the story that TJ brought up. I see his point about people feeling somewhat compelled to keep the chain going, and it therefore no longer being true philanthropy. However I do feel that if some of these people didn’t want to pay for the person behind them, then they would realize they didn’t have to and move on with their free drink. These people still felt a sense of happiness when their money paid for someone else’s drink, which I feel is a sort of philanthropy. Imagine how many people on that 11 hour line drove off with a smile on their face knowing that they just did something that made them happy. So, money can therefore by happiness.
Great post!
-Thomas Houghton
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteI really like the twist you put on the old phrase "money can't buy happiness." I definitely think you're right that helping others can contribute to both their happiness and your own happiness. I believe that the reason that so many rich people decide to spend their lives donating money and participating in philanthropical acts is not always just for selfless reasons: I think a major contributing factor to philanthropy is the happiness it brings (and the fact that it eases the guilt of sitting on a pile of cash). There is also a lot of evidence that shows giving leads to happiness as long as you give to something you're passionate about (http://time.com/collection/guide-to-happiness/4070299/secret-to-happiness/).
One issue I had with your post is your ultra-broad definition of philanthropy. While technically buying someone a cup of coffee would technically be "promoting the welfare of others," I wouldn't call it an act of philanthropy. In my opinion, to be a true philanthropist you have to donate your time or money to someone in need. It's nice to buy your friend his lunch, but I wouldn't consider it philanthropy unless that friend has nothing else to eat.
I also wanted to note that in light of our discussion of Peter Singer's view on philanthropy, being happy with your donation doesn't always mean you donated to the best cause. You might feel better about yourself by donating to a local cause, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are doing the most good with your money. On the other hand, Singer's view on philanthropy is a bit idealistic and the happiness involved with donating is often an important factor for many people. Even donating just to make yourself feel good is better than donating nothing at all.
I agree with you that if more people recognized the fulfillment that comes with giving away money, many more people would give and everyone as a whole would be happier.
-Adiel Felsen