About Me

Reading Response #1

Philanthropy can work within many different contexts and come in a vast array of manifestations. What philanthropy looks like to me may not be exactly what it looks like to you or a scholar, doctor, politician, teacher, entrepreneur, or any individual for that matter. Philanthropy is a broad field and its purpose of “doing good” is very commonly different depending on who you ask. Mike Martin’s argument that philanthropy is most effective when there is “two-way interaction” between those who give and those who receive relates to the common theme of my chosen reading “To Hell with Good Intentions.” I chose this piece because of its raw brutality and its strong relation to the theme of this assignment. The phrase of not fixing something which isn’t broken comes into play; if we see hurting or wrong doing in the world, is it our duty to fix it? What place is it of ours to alleviate pain where we have no frame of reference? Illich’s speech on taking action and authority over a culture which is outside your own is incredibly powerful. My understanding of this stance comes down to privilege, ignorance, and world-view. Illich remarks that though one has means and opportunity to improve pain and suffering, it does not mean they necessarily should. This all comes down to a culture of understanding and it is insulting and underwhelming to assume such responsibilities over problems you do not understand (Illich, 1968).

Utilitarianism is most plainly described as the greatest good or the greatest number, effectively increasing the value of a good deed by helping the greatest number of people. An excellent example which was discussed during class time is the infamous “Trolley Problem”. This is an ethical dilemma used often to define utilitarianism, flipping a switch to kill only one person, or doing nothing and allowing five people to be killed by a rogue trolley. Virtue ethics describes that practicing honesty and goodness, you build your moral character which teaches you how to respond when faced with ethical dilemmas. Aristotle’s theory of value ethics focused on your morality as a person, whereas utilitarianism is highly motivated by outcomes (Ethics Unwrapped).

As value ethics would argue against Illich’s address, doing good makes you a better person over time. By flying to another part of the country and alleviating suffering for others, you are practicing your moral obligation to help others instead of ignoring them. However, Illich still holds fair ground when he states that many of these “do-gooders” were not asked or inviting to do their American dream vacation in developing villages in Mexico. Peter Singer might have a stake in this argument, that it doesn’t necessarily matter how far away a tragedy is, it is still your moral obligation to do something (Singer, 1972). Martin’s statement for this response says that active communication of needs and means should be discussed in order for philanthropy to be most effective. I would agree with this statement overall, that an expressed need must be present and it is always best to act (with philanthropy) out of knowledge, rather than impulse. It is imperative to understand thoughts, feelings, and attitudes of constituents before making gifts or doing good deeds. I believe Illich would concur with this statement that slop-and-drop philanthropy is less effective than philanthropy which is expressed and requested properly. There are certain aspects of this courtesy being neglected, such as pride and dignity, which jeopardize the essence of philanthropy for the most important party of the interaction: the recipient. My statement to this study is that understanding, learning, and listening are all key in being an effective philanthropists. This is the real world where people don’t wear capes—we have to brandish something even more important… our brains and our common sense.