This week in class we discussed what values lead us to
participate in philanthropy. Many people were unsure of what their values were or
were not able to articulate them. When thinking about what to write about this
week I thought of the values discussion and decided to look up why people give
to charity. I found an interesting article called “Why Do You Really Give to
Charity? Why Donate?” by Joanne Fagan (http://evasvillage.org/wordpress/why-give-to-charity/).
The article explains
two theories that social psychologists have for why we help others. The first
is “Public Benefit” which states that we help because we believe that our
actions benefit others even though we don’t believe to gain anything for
ourselves through our actions. The second
is “Private Benefit,” which states that we help others because we see ourselves
benefitting in some way. Many studies show that helping others has brought
surprise benefits such as, “reduced
stress and depression, better immune system functioning, a greater sense of
life satisfaction and in the case of corporate volunteering,
helping increase employee morale and productivity.” Which of these two theories leads you guys to
donate?
The article
also talks about how thinking about giving makes us give less. Research has
shown that thinking about details such as how we should give, how much, and
which cause is best, reduces the emotional responses that lead to giving at
all. I thought that this was another interesting topic to bring to you guys
because we obviously talk and think a lot about donating. What do you all think
of this theory? Could there be some truth to it?
This article
reminded me of an episode of Friends where Joey tells Phoebe that there is no
such thing as a selfless good dead. Phoebe then goes on a mission to find and
do a selfless good dead. She ultimately ends up not being able to find a good
dead that gives her no benefit. If you need a reminder or haven’t seen it here
is a clip, you can skip to a minute in, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DowJfUmlzeI.
This is an interesting idea. Thinking about good deeds I have done, I find it
hard to find one that I did not gain anything from. I challenge you to think of
things you have done for others, did you receive anything from it, including
joy, happiness or new knowledge. But my question is, if there is no such thing
as a selfless good dead is that really a problem? If you donate half your
income and feel happiness because you helped people does that really reduce
your good dead in anyway? I would love to hear your thoughts on whether there
is such a thing as a selfless good dead and whether it matters or not.
This is a very interesting and thought provoking topic of discussion Emily. My take on it is that there are such things as selfless good deeds but whether there are or aren't really doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteRecently (while scrolling through social media), I saw a security camera tape of a subway. Only a couple people were around waiting for their ride when a man fell down into the subway probably about 10 seconds from the subway pulling up to the terminal. He was as good as dead. However, a total stranger saw this man fall in and jumped down in with him in order to help him out. Within seconds of the subway speeding by, the stranger pushed the man out and then jumped out himself. Miraculously, they both lived and escaped from imminent death.
The motives of the stranger are unknown. He could have been helping out this man because of "Public Benefit" because he thought it was the right thing to do. He could have jumped into the subway and helped this man without any expectation of reward for himself. He also, however, could've jumped into the subway in order to feel some sort of gratitude or expected to get some kind of reward for his bravery.
But who cares? Does it matter why the stranger helped out the man? My view is no. A life was saved either way and I'm sure the man who fell doesn't care why; he is just lucky to be alive.
There is no way to tell (yet) if a person's actions are truly selfless or not, but I don't think that is very important. What is important is that the good deed is done and that the world is now a better place because of it.
I agree with Charlie in that it is not all that important if there are any selfless good deeds or not, if people are helping others out in this world, then I am all for it. Now this doesn't mean that I am saying it is a good thing for a rich celebrity to donate a boatload of money just to make headlines and then abandon the project, but rather that if someone performs a good deed out of the goodness of their heart, then they deserve some sort of moral reward for helping out.
ReplyDeleteI would also be willing to go and say that those people who get these private benefits are even more likely to help out again and again, and this fosters a healthy relationship between the philanthropist and those that he or she is helping. Take, for example, Hannah Salwen, when she began working at Cafe 458 she enjoyed helping out others, and the joy that she got from making other people's lives better inspired her to continue to go back and volunteer, and look where that led her.
So I think that if a person is helping out for the right reasons, then they completely deserve a little private benefit because the public benefit that they are providing is something that should always be valued, no matter how small. As for my personal volunteering, I do get a private benefit from helping others. Depending on the project I may be volunteering alongside friends, making the experience more enjoyable, or I also just enjoy the satisfaction of knowing that I made someone else's day better. I don't think that takes away from the service that I perform at all and it keeps me going back.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Ryan and Charlie in that the motive of someone doing a good deed is basically irrelevant. The important thing is that a good deed is being done. However, does the motive make someone seem more or less selfish despite that they still did a good deed? For instance, when celebrities give away millions of dollars to certain charities, the public then wonders if they only did so to receive more fame. Recently, I had a conversation with my friend about how Macklemore stands up for gay rights particularly in his song, “Same Love.” My friend sort of looked down on Macklemore because he believed that he was only doing this for publicity and fame. I countered his argument though saying that no matter his motive he is still raising awareness for a good cause. While it may be selfish of Macklemore or other celebrities to take action only for personal gain, he is still making a positive difference.
As for the Friends clip that Emily posted, it really made me question whether there is such a thing as a truly selfless deed. I found myself relating to Phoebe, denying the idea that there’s no such thing as a selfless deed. In Charlie’s post, he argued that the man that almost sacrificed his life to save another was a true selfless deed. However, I am sure that this man felt extremely wonderful afterwards to have saved someone’s life. Even if his motive was solely to do the right thing, he probably felt good afterwards. Does that make it a selfish deed though? Joey from Friends would have argued that it still was a selfish deed because he ended up feeling good about what he had done. However, I think that just because you feel good afterwards doesn’t necessarily make it a selfish deed. I agree with Charlie in that what makes this man’s actions selfless are that his motive was to do the right thing even if that meant putting his own life at risk. I doubt this man thought, “Let me save this guy’s life just so I can feel good.”
As for my own personal experience, it is difficult to think of an example in which I haven’t received some sort of benefit from doing good. However, that doesn’t mean to say that my motives were selfish. Many times I like to think that it’s public benefit that motivates me to do something good, and then I unintentionally receive private benefits as a result. These benefits include feeling good knowing I helped out, making friends, or learning something new about others or myself. However, even though these can be considered “selfish” reasons, I think that if the deed is still getting done, then it does not matter whether or not someone receives private benefits. Regardless, the difference is still being made.
I don't think I've ever heard of the concept of a selfless good deed before. And now that I'm thinking about it with this blog post, it makes sense why a good deed is never selfless. Because when you think about it, the real reason we do good deeds is because it makes us feel good that we're doing something for the community, that will in turn benefit us in the future. And I think that is why it is so hard to pin point your core values with philanthropy: giving just feels good. How could does one explain the root and/or core value of the natural, satisfying emotion attached to giving back. I don't think that anyone would do anything if it wasn't for that fact that the smile you put on other people's face is just as gratifying to you and your mental health.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of private and public benefits, I don't really see a real reason in separating the two. They go hand in hand. As I mentioned before, people do nice things because it makes them feel good, and there is nothing wrong with that. And more power to you if you can reap both the public and private benefits of performing charitable acts. And as Ryan said, people deserve the private benefit. A good deed is a good deed, and helping people, no matter the intentions, is still helpful.
So, I believe when people are trying to figure out their core values, or answer Joanne Fagan's question of why do they really give to charity, instead of trying to focus on what type of benefits they are trying to achieve, they should focus on few more integral questions. What do you stand for? What in the world infuriates you so much, you want to see a change? What are you willing to fight for? Or even, what cause would you die for? I see the point Joanne Fagan was trying to make, but I feel as though she made the reader feel bad for gaining any benefits from giving back.
^Chelsea Desruisseaux
DeleteI think that the feeling one gets from donating is not bad at all. In fact I think the feeling one gets from giving anything charitably to another is one of the most positive forces in history. I know that when I give money for the rest of that day I feel great and more so I feel kind. That day I treat everyone better I am much more selfless then than at any other time. The feeling of giving is not just an after effect. It is much more than just a good feeling you can get from giving to one who needs it more. It is a positive loop telling you to continue doing what you are doing.
ReplyDeleteI heard a question not so long ago which is semi related: is it better to hive one poor soul 1000 dollars on one day or to give 1000 dollars to 1000 people over the course of 1000 days. My solution to the question is that the latter is better. While both do very good things to others, only in the second are you permanently affected. The act of giving everyday changes a person. It can make a person into a better person it can make him consistently charitable. That action then turns an average man into someone who cares for other because he constantly thinks and gives to those who have less. This change is just as important as the donation and makes the person grow from the act of charity, and there is nothing greater than growing and improving your life by improving another's.
The first question you asked was which of the two theories leads me to donate. I see myself donating due to a mixture of both theories. Donating would definitely help benefit other, and I would not be doing it solely on personal gain, but I do think that helping others would benefit myself emotionally. It is rewarding to see how you can improve another person’s life. I suppose donating a sum of money and not exactly seeing where it ends up could be a “Private Benefit”, because you know you are helping someone but you don’t know exactly how, but in the end you simply feel happy that you helped someone. I can think of numerous examples that apply to each of these theories.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting that there is proven research that shows that the more that we think about giving, in fact makes us give less. However, I do not exactly see how this could reduce the emotional response, if anything I feel like this would increase the emotional response. This makes me rather upset that it is proven that people give less, the more that they think about it.
I think Charlie’s response to the video he watched went perfectly with the discussion of Public versus Private Benefit when donating. And I like how he ended with his opinion that at the end of the day, it does not matter why someone donated, as long as they donated and that someone benefitted, and there should be no critique of why a certain party benefitted over another. Chelsea is right that they go hand in hand, often times there is a combination of both. Depending on how the person is giving, the person being benefitted can change; it is a nice feeling to sometimes benefit yourself rather than always benefitting others. That is why philanthropy is so cool, because there are so many ways to give back and help others and in turn help yourself.