Frivolous Philanthropy

Success is often defined by a person’s wealth"that, somehow, the amount of money and luxuries that a person obtains is reflective of their success in life. Surely, it reflects a success in helping themselves to what they desire. It may not, however, be reflective of their success in helping the world to change (for the better). So, in order to retain a comfortable supply of capital and gain this other type of success, Peter Singer proposes a sort of philanthropy. He suggests that “whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” This sounds very nice, but I am uncertain as to its actual success.

 

Growing up, I imagined myself distributing my wealth in such a way and believed this would truly help the world. Currently, as an activist in this capitalist system, I find that cash often becomes a kind of a hurdle when igniting social change. Yet, I can hardly imagine the frustration that comes from really needing money and not having it. Take for example volunteers medically treating individuals in over-imperialized (what we call “under-developed”) countries, with neither enough nor proper equipment. The answer seems clear. They need funding; you have excess and should give to where money is needed. Even on a local level"when it comes to choosing between updating your cable plan and having a few extra dollars to hand to the homeless man on State Street or to donate to your local church’s offering"I am awed (and disturbed) at the selfish tendencies of our society. A dollar to that person or organization could mean a world of change; it could be a meal or clean equipment. Mostly, it represents that there are some people who care just enough. People who are not so self-involved that they can go through the simple act of handing over our “valuable” money. If one thinks about it, this is a relatively easy thing to do and does not require an incredible effort or sacrifice"so, why not?

 

Opponents may ask, “What is a luxury and a necessity?” Or argue, “It will destroy our economic system.” These are not valid arguments. Luxuries and necessities can easily be self-defined"it is not mandatory to enforce pre-defined standards; but to, instead, allow and trust individuals to personally make these decisions and follow through. Furthermore, the current free trade and capitalist systems are incredibly flawed. They cause the majority of problems that organizations, which require these donations, are solving. The world would be better off with these systems devastated. While those arguments may be inadequate, throwing money at situations is not the desired course of action. In Sonia Nazario’s non-fiction Enrique’s Journey, she proves the fatality of this approach (even in desperate situations). Enrique’s mother was faced with an impossible decision. Choosing between staying in Honduras, with her children, earning hardly enough to both feed and send her children to school or moving to the United States to find a well-paying job that would support her and her family. She decided to move; the filial strife and emotional strain was devastating. It is true that the family was not completely poor and uneducated (like others in the community), but one observes that moving caused more problems than it solved. The few devoted individuals working selflessly and personally with the immigrants had an awe-inspiring and change-creating power. Enrique’s mother (and the thousands of like her) lacked that same power. This is an obvious manifestation that any real change accomplished by humanity has come from individuals and their commitment"not from their sacrifices and pocketbooks.

 

While clear that our money is needed in a plethora of situations and can mean a world of change to many, it is simply the first step. Donating one’s extra capital should be what is expected not that which we strive for. Philanthropy, even to this extent, is a sort of mediocre activism used to flaunt an apparent usefulness (or success) and will not suffice in any important global change. As an activist being short of money, although discouraging, is relatively easy to work around. I am often successful without it; however, I am not successful without people aware and actually involved. I support Singer’s proposal"but in order for it to be successful, it should be bold enough to demand that a person’s extra time and energy should also be spent bettering the world. As it stands Singer’s proposal helps to shape the facade that money will solve our problems. And as much as we would like to believe, money, simply, cannot do that; we, alone, have that power.