Define: Philanthropy

As college students, we are all at drastically different places with money. Some are lucky enough to have their parents backing them and can use any extra money earned in whatever way they feel. Others are saving every penny because they know that they will need it to pay back students loans. Because we do not yet rake in a full professional salary, it is vital that we think outside the box when it comes to philanthropy. Looking at the word phil (love) anthropy (of humanity), one can see that money is not necessary to love others. There are lots of actions that express loving others that have nothing to do with money. This includes volunteering, reaching out to new and international students, teaching, providing services at low cost, or even giving away textbooks and clothing that were once our necessities but are no longer needed.

One part of the book The Life You Can Save, by Peter Singer, that stood out to me was about the corruption of the money already in circulation. He pointed out that it’s not there’s not enough money to end to poverty, it’s that the money is being poured into corrupt practices which keep it from the poor. For instance, industrial fishing companies from Europe, China and Russia catch there fish off the coast of Senegal, depriving the local people of a major source of food and income. These fish are then sold to Europeans, for whom fish is simply a luxury (p. 30). Singer then goes on to talk about the raw materials that go into the products Americans buy every day. He reports that in 2005, the Democratic Republic of Congo sold $200 million worth of minerals, but that only $86,000 was given back to the people through governmental services. The rest was kept by the corrupt politicians selling the minerals.

Singer states that “If we use goods made from raw materials obtained by these unethical dealings from resource-rich but money-poor nations, we are harming those who live these countries” (p. 31). Is this philanthropy, or love of humanity? Of course not! The Enough Project’s founders were disturbed by the fighting in places like the Republic of Congo over minerals sources. Because it is so easy to get rich over selling these minerals, violence is rampant as people fight over the mines. The Enough Project encourages Americans to practice philanthropy by considering carefully which products they buy.  If you don’t have enough money to donate because of all of your college expenses, make your college expenses philanthropic! The Enough Project rates companies based on how ethical their practices are. So when your laptop or phone breaks, simply buying from an ethical company and staying away from an unethical one can help decrease the conflict over minerals in places like the Republic of Congo. Since you would have bought a new laptop or phone anyways, you are not “donating” any extra money, but you are putting your money to good use. Other opportunities to purchase wisely are in Fair Trade Coffee, locally grown produce, and Ethical and Eco-friendly clothing. 

As college students, we can make a difference. Expand your definition of philanthropy.

Blog #1 (Emmanuella Murat)

I personally have a hard time wrapping my mind around the new definition of philanthropy. While in class we have learned that anyone can be a philanthropist, when I hear the word “philanthropy” I immediately think of multi-billionaires that make donations to local and global charities. In The Life You Can Save, Peter Singer makes the argument that both the wealthy and not-so-wealthy are equally capable of eradicating poverty and saving a life. While I wholeheartedly agree with this argument, I strongly disagree with Singer’s suggestion of giving every spare penny to charity. Of course there is no way to make such a statement without sounding selfish, so I will go on to explain myself. According to Singer, we all have possessions we don’t necessarily need. It’s actually quite alarming how much clothes individuals have that they never wear, and the amount of money individuals spend on a ridiculous items they hardly use. However, I do believe there are some essentials that individuals must have in their lives, such as a retirement fund. Singer argues, “By saving money for retirement, we are effectively refusing to use that money to save lives” (14). While his argument holds great truth (because here we are saving for the future while impoverished individuals can barely make it through the present), I want to ensure that my family and I can live comfortably (not lavishly) now and in old age. This is not to say that donations cannot be made, but that they should be made without negatively affecting the life of the donor.

Another interesting point to which Singer brings attention is the institutional causes of poverty, which has much—if not everything—to do with capitalism. This semester I am enrolled in HDEV 366: Poverty and Discrimination, which spends a great deal of class time discussing why some individuals are impoverished while are others are not, and how such disparities in wealth even exist. While the central focus of the course is poverty in the US, the points made in The Wealth Inequality Reader (the course textbook) can be applied to SCHL 280: Philanthropy and Civil Society. According to editors Sam Pizzigati and Linda Pinklow, “A small segment of the top 1%…have worked over many decades to rig the rules of the economy to favor the 1% at the expense of the 99%... These rules range from government policies related to taxation and global trade to matters of regulation and levels of public spending. All these rule changes, taken together, have led to massive imbalances of wealth and power that jeopardize peace and prosperity across the globe” (VIII). Members of the 1% have no desire to relinquish their position of wealth and power, so to secure their status they have used said wealth and power to structure policies that are in their favor. Global trade, for instance, might be a huge reason why developing countries remain impoverished and why the developed countries that exploit them continue to prosper. Singer brings to our attention that resource-rich developing countries are typically the countries with incidences of corruption, coups, and civil wars as a result of the interest international companies have in them (31). This interest has repeatedly resulted in the creation of dictators that work hand in hand with wealthy companies.

The question of how to eradicate poverty has been mulled over for centuries. We have the wealthy that want to remain wealthy, and the impoverished with little to no power to do anything about their circumstance. Where does the fight against poverty begin? At the individual level (the argument made by Singer) or at the institutional level (the argument made by of Pizzigati and Pinklow)?