[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Brave New World
At the risk of repeating your earlier discussion:
> We recently had this discussion about Gates's so called philanthropy.
> company or person who "donates" with a person agenda is not donating
> anything. When apple gave discounts, it wasn't donating, it was buying
This seems to me to be entirely arbitrary. If you define donations
entirely from the perspective of the party doing the giving, then
everyone has an agenda. Do we rule out anyone who makes a donation and
then takes a tax deduction? What about someone who is religiously
motivated? Does a reward in the hereafter disqualify a good act because
the person is motivated by a later reward? Where do you draw the line?
Maybe true philanthropy is defined as losing your wallet.
Unintentionally, of course.
Why can't philanthropy be evaluated from the perspective of the
beneficiary? Or at least by an equally weighted evaluation. I wouldn't
have a problem evaluating a "level" or "quality" of philanthropy based
on certain criteria, but I certainly wouldn't discount the presence of
philanthropy on any set of criteria - how can any such evaluation be