Ethics News
Social Responsibility
>> = Important Articles; ** = Major Articles
Supplemental Articles in a separate file (click here to read)
>>Capitalism and the Global Poor (Christian Post, 060127)
**Operation Christmas Child Rallies Believers to Reach 8M Children (Christian Post, 091127)
**The Real Skinflints (BreakPoint, 070104)
**Put your money where your mouth is (BreakPoint, 061129)
**Who really cares? (townhall.com, 061128)
**Re: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is (BreakPoint, 061129)
**Who gives to charity? (townhall.com, 071206)
**Are the rich cheap? (townhall.com, 061213)
==============================
“I keep hearing feed the poor, clothe the hungry, give shelter to those who don’t have it. The bozos that say this don’t recognize that capitalism and technology have done more to feed and clothe and shelter and heal people than all the charity and church programs in history. So they preach about it and we are the ones doing it. They want to rob Peter to pay Paul, but they always forget that Peter is the one creating the wealth in the first place.”
– T.J. Rogers, C.E.O. of Cypress Semiconductor
The above quote, taken out of John R. Schneider’s book, The Good of Affluence, is one capitalist’s frank response to the wing of the church that condemns both affluence and the engine that sustains it. While somewhat overstated, his viewpoint is well taken. The Evangelical Left has often made the mistake of condemning the very economic system that has more effectively lifted people out of physical want than any other in human history. Whatever capitalism’s faults it is incumbent on Christians to compare it to other constructs, from feudalism to state socialism, which have failed to be anywhere near as effective in ameliorating poverty.
Many might argue that First World capitalism in developed countries is built on the backs of the Third World nations. This is an accurate observation in some cases. It is true that millions are presently working for multi-national corporations in conditions no Western worker would endure. However the salient question is whether these millions would be doing better had they never been offered such employment opportunities. Subsistence farming, for example, has left millions to die in famines when weather or soil conditions have turned unfavorable. What if such starving farmers and their families had been employed in these much-maligned foreign-funded manufacturing jobs? This is an important question for social justice-oriented Christians to ask.
Another question the Ron Sider’s and Tony Campolo’s of this world might want to ask themselves is what the real reason is for extreme poverty in places like Africa. That continent, for example, has been blessed by abundant natural resources, probably valued in the tens of trillions of dollars. The conventional wisdom is that oppressive, usually capitalist, nations in the West have economically raped the people of Africa over the past three centuries. While it is certainly factual that economic colonialism has played a role in the misery that we unfortunately now almost take for granted on this continent there is another reason that rarely gets much play. Many African nations have no functional rule of law regarding property rights. In addition these same countries often have few enforced laws designed to further the market mechanisms that have been in place for hundreds of years in Europe and America. Without both property rights and the market mechanisms such rights support the massive wealth potential of natural resources in Africa will remain untapped and useless to the welfare of Africans.
Perhaps Western financial aid to developing countries should be tied to progress in establishing the practical institutions necessary for the functioning of market economies. Many charitable Christians are already involved in “micro-enterprise” projects in these nations, but what about campaigning for “macro-enterprise” as well? We do the global poor no favors sending them fish without helping to make them fishermen.
A century ago sweatshops staffed by new immigrants were a common part of the economic landscape in the United States. Today the descendants of those immigrants are among the most affluent people in human history. Western capitalism ultimately developed, by necessity, into a more perfected system that did away with the sweatshops. Given time this same system can be imported into Third World countries if the West invests political and economic capital in building the under girding structures required for modern market economies. The Church can and should be a major partner in this 21st Century effort.
It has been said that God “helps those who help themselves.” While this phrase is found nowhere in the Bible it does contain some truth. The global welfare state mentality implicated by the words of some prominent evangelical social activists needs to be replaced with one that sets the poor free to climb the same economic ladder that the affluent citizens of the West have already climbed. This is the most effective way to help those caught in poverty around the world. We who identify ourselves with the name of Christ are indeed called to feed the poor and clothe the naked, but at some point we must enable them to feed and clothe themselves.
_________________________________________________
Shea Oakley has written over 145 Christian op/ed pieces and devotionals that have been published in both electronic and print media.
==============================
Why there might be two “God Gaps” in America.
Tobin Grant
Political scientists often refer to a “God Gap” in American politics, noting the tendency for religious people to be more conservative and vote Republican while those who are less observant lean left and prefer the Democratic Party. “If I know whether you say grace before meals every day, I can probably predict how you vote,” Notre Dame political scientist David Campbell recently told Los Angeles Times columnist Doyle McManus.
New research suggests there are actually two God Gaps. For some Christians, being more religious makes them more conservative on social issues. For others, going to church, praying, and doing other religious activities actually makes them more liberal on social justice issues.
Previous polls have shown the God Gap has been limited to social issues, issues that focus on individual morality. People who are more religious tend to hold more conservative positions on social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, but there was no God Gap on issues like welfare, health care, or other social justice policies.
A new study finds the difference between these two types of Christians is what they think it means to be a “good Christian.” For some, being a good Christian might mean greater pietism, a focus on eliminating individual sins. As these kinds of Christians become more religious, they become more conservative on issues like abortion and gay rights. For others, being a good Christian means reaching out and helping one’s neighbor. These Christians take more liberal positions on social justice issues as they become more observant.
Steve Mockabee (University of Cincinnati), Ken Wald (University of Florida), and David Leege (Notre Dame) studied the God Gap with new questions on the American National Election Study, a survey sponsored by National Science Foundation.
Nearly all Christians said there had been times in their lives when they had “tried to be a good Christian” (94%). But Christians differed in how they tried to be a good Christian. Christians were given two choices: “avoid doing sinful things” or “help other people.” Of course, many Christians try to do both, but the researchers forced them to make a choice in order to see which was most important.
Overall, one-third of Christians said they had tried to be a good Christian by sinning less, but there were differences among religious groups. Nearly half of black Protestants said being a good Christian meant sinning less compared to about four-in-ten white evangelicals who said the same thing.
The survey also asked people who thought being a good Christian meant helping others if they did so by helping people one at a time or if they worked with groups helping people. Two-thirds of Christians tried to help people one at a time. Mainline Protestants and black Protestants were more likely to try to work with groups helping many people instead of trying to help people one at a time.
The researchers found that the original God Gap may be overstated. Being more religious makes “avoiding sin” Christians more conservative on social issues like abortion, gay rights, or the role of women in society. “Helping others” Christians do not become more conservative on abortion or gay rights. In fact, these Christians become more liberal on issues related to women.
As these “helping others” Christians become more religious, they also become more liberal on issues such as aid to the poor, welfare spending, government health insurance, government aid to African-Americans, and unemployment aid. Being a more observant “avoiding sin” Christian has no affect on how they view these issues with one exception—the more religious an “avoiding sin” Christian is, the more they oppose government health insurance.
The research is being published as part of Improving Public Opinion Surveys, a Princeton University Press book coming out later this year.
How to be a Good Christian
|
|
Avoid doing sinful things |
Help others one at a time |
Join groups to help many at a time |
|
Evangelical Protestant |
16% |
42% |
42% |
|
Mainline Protestant |
33% |
40% |
27% |
|
Black Protestant |
22% |
31% |
47% |
|
Catholic |
18% |
52% |
30% |
==============================
With Thanksgiving Day passed and the Christmas season now revving up, people across the nation are being encouraged to add a child they don’t know to their list of Christmas gift recipients knowing that doing so could make a profound, lifelong impact.
Though National Collection Week for the annual Operation Christmas Child project officially concluded this past Monday, project coordinators are continuing to call upon people throughout the nation to join in the effort, noting that there’s still time.
“Operation Christmas Child is underway RIGHT NOW,” emphasized an announcement made Friday, “and volunteers hope to collect 8 million shoe box gifts for children suffering from poverty, war, disease, famine and natural disaster. “
Since international Christian relief organization Samaritan’s Purse launched Operation Christmas Child in 1993, the project has collected more than 69 million shoe box gifts and hand-delivered them to needy children in more than 130 countries.
Last year, Operation Christmas Child celebrated for the first time the collection of 8 million gift-filled shoe boxes through the participation of churches and communities across America as well as 10 other countries. For the effort, more than 2,200 collection sites were set up throughout all 50 states in America and more than 130,000 volunteers worldwide – including some 100,000 volunteers in the United States – joined forces to prepare the boxes for transport to distant lands.
This year, there were more than 2,400 collection sites in the United States.
“It really was an amazing thing to see,” commented Brenda Franklin, Operation Christmas Child relay center coordinator for the charity’s drop off point in Big Spring, Texas, where 840 shoeboxes were collected.
“Last year we collected 685 shoeboxes, and this year we were shooting for 700, so it was really a pleasant surprise when we did the final count,” Franklin told her local newspaper, the Big Spring Herald.
Though the items in the shoe boxes are usually simple – toothpaste, small toys and school supplies – donors are being reminded of the difference they could make in the life of a child who might be hurting for feeling forgotten. For many kids who receive a shoe box gift, it will be the first gift they have ever received.
“In a lot of other countries the kids have almost nothing of their own. So even simple things like stickers or colored pens or a ball are really special,” commented Huda El-betjali, who received an Operation Christmas Child shoe box gift as a 9-year-old living in Jordan.
“They will remember that shoe box gift forever. I know I’ll never forget mine,” added El-betjali, who is now a student at Cal State San Bernardino and has begun packing shoe box gifts for other kids in need.
With National Collection Week having wrapped up on Nov. 23, Operation Christmas Child participants can no longer deliver their gift-filled boxes to their nearest drop off location. They can, however, mail them to the Boone, N.C., office of Samaritan’s Purse.
In just a few weeks, the organization will begin hand-delivering the shoe boxes to children around the world, using whatever means necessary – sea containers, trucks, trains, airplanes, helicopters, boats, camels, even dog sleds.
A downloadable graphic of how anyone can participate in the project is available at the Samaritan’s Purse website, www.samaritanspurse.org.
This year, Samaritan’s Purse is using tracking technology that allows donors to “follow your box” to the destination country where it will be hand-delivered to a child in need.
==============================
By Chuck Colson
America’s Charity Divide
Are conservatives and Christians becoming too narrow and selfish? Are we hypocritical skinflints, indifferent to the suffering of the needy?
The liberals say so. But is it true? Do conservatives and Christians really love their money more than they do the poor?
A new book by an expert on charity says: absolutely not. The real skinflints, he writes, are secular liberals.
Arthur Brooks, professor at Syracuse University, writes in his new book, titled Who Really Cares, that he grew up in a liberal home and accepted one of the liberal political nostrums: that the political left “is compassionate and charitable toward the less fortunate, but the political right is oblivious to suffering.”
“If you had asked me a few years ago to sum up the character of American conservatives,” he writes, “I would have said they were hard-headed pragmatists who were willing to throw your grandmother out into the snow to preserve some weird ideal of self-reliance.”
But his own research forced him to change his mind. Religious conservatives give more, and do more, for the poor than anyone else. By contrast, liberals, who tend both to be irreligious and to believe that government can and should redistribute income, tend to be far stingier.
Brooks invites us to consider two people: one who goes to church every week and rejects the idea that it’s the government’s job to redistribute income. The second person never attends church and believes the government should reduce income differences. “Knowing only these [two] things,” Brooks writes, “the data tell us that the first person will be roughly twice as likely as the second to give money to charities in a given year, and will give away more than one hundred times as much money per year”—that’s right, one hundred times—and give it to both religious and non-religious causes.
This should be obvious when you think about it, because there are vastly different worldviews at work here. Christians are guided by revealed truth and the wisdom of the past—what’s often called the democracy of the dead. And we recognize original sin as the fundamental state of human nature, and so we are distrustful of big institutions. Moreover, Christians believe that they have a personal duty to help the poor, because the Bible commands it and because we understand that society’s problems are morally rooted and, thus, more likely to need moral solutions. So, we are involved in creating what Edmund Burke called the “little platoons” of society: organizations devoted to feeding the hungry, freeing slaves, and helping those in prison.
By contrast, the secular liberal rejects the idea of original sin. He believes that with the right education and enough money, the lot of humanity can be improved. So liberals believe that, with their superior wisdom, they can create utopia—just give them the power—which is why they believe in big-government solutions to society’s problems, solutions that we now know have done more harm than good.
This is why, the next time you hear someone berating conservative Christians for being skinflints and those “narrow-minded bigots,” use it as a double-edged opportunity: It’s the Christians, tell them, who are giving more than the non-Christians. And then explain why: It’s because we worship a God who tells us that we should “abide in faith, hope, and charity, these three—but the greatest of these is charity.”
==============================
by Gina Dalfonzo
Thomas Sowell remarks on Arthur Brooks’s new book Who Really Cares? about whether conservatives or liberals give more of their money, time, and talents to charitable causes:
People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.
It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6% higher incomes than conservative families. . . .
Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.
According to Professor Brooks: “If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45%.”
Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the opposite of what he expected to find — so much so that he went back and checked these facts again, to make sure there was no mistake.
A tip of the hat for the link to Roberto, who suggests that the reason for this trend is that, in general, conservatives tend to be more religious, and religious people give more. I agree, but I also think there’s more to it than that.
Sowell himself hints at the answer when he writes, “It is liberals who advocate ‘forgiveness’ of loans to Third World countries, a ‘living wage’ for the poor and a ‘safety net’ for all. But these are all government policies — not individual acts of compassion.”
Traditionally, conservatism has long advocated that individuals be allowed to donate their money privately as they choose, rather than having it donated for them via taxation. The Republican party may have neglected this principle in recent years, but it seems that the conservative segment of the population hasn’t yet forgotten it.
Then Sowell goes on to ask why anyone would be a liberal, “if it is not that liberals are more compassionate,” but again he himself points to the answer:
While both sides argue that their opponents are mistaken, those on the left have declared their opponents to be not merely in error but morally flawed as well. So the idea that liberals are more caring and compassionate goes with the territory, whether or not it fits the facts.
Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test — and how completely it failed that test.
So let me see: If I’m a liberal, I only have to give a little bit to charity to declare myself morally superior to those who give more than I do. Man, how come no one ever told me liberalism was so easy and fun?? Sign me up right now!
==============================
By Thomas Sowell
More frightening than any particular beliefs or policies is an utter lack of any sense of a need to test those beliefs and policies against hard evidence. Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision.
One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring. It is liberals who advocate “forgiveness” of loans to Third World countries, a “living wage” for the poor and a “safety net” for all.
But these are all government policies — not individual acts of compassion — and the actual empirical consequences of such policies are of remarkably little interest to those who advocate them. Depending on what those consequences are, there may be good reasons to oppose them, so being for or against these policies may tell us nothing about who is compassionate or caring and who is not.
A new book, titled “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks examines the actual behavior of liberals and conservatives when it comes to donating their own time, money, or blood for the benefit of others. It is remarkable that beliefs on this subject should have become conventional, if not set in concrete, for decades before anyone bothered to check these beliefs against facts.
What are those facts?
People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.
It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6% higher incomes than conservative families.
You may recall a flap during the 2000 election campaign when the fact came out that Al Gore donated a smaller percentage of his income to charity than the national average. That was perfectly consistent with his liberalism.
So is the fact that most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush.
Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.
According to Professor Brooks: “If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45%.”
Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the opposite of what he expected to find — so much so that he went back and checked these facts again, to make sure there was no mistake.
What is the reason why some people are liberals and others are conservatives, if it is not that liberals are more compassionate?
Fundamental differences in ideology go back to fundamental assumptions about human nature. Based on one set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a liberal. Based on a different set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a conservative.
The two visions are not completely symmetrical, however. For at least two centuries, the vision of the left has included a belief that those with that vision are morally superior, more caring and more compassionate.
While both sides argue that their opponents are mistaken, those on the left have declared their opponents to be not merely in error but morally flawed as well. So the idea that liberals are more caring and compassionate goes with the territory, whether or not it fits the facts.
Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test — and how completely it failed that test.
The two visions are different in another way. The vision of the left exalts the young especially as idealists while the more conservative vision warns against the narrowness and shallowness of the inexperienced. This study found young liberals to make the least charitable contributions of all, whether in money, time or blood. Idealism in words is not idealism in deeds.
==============================
by Roberto Rivera
Sorry, Gina, I’m not buying what Sowell is trying to sell. It makes some intuitive sense but is it what actually happens? I don’t think so.
Arthur C. Brooks, the Syracuse professor on whose work Sowell’s and Stossel’s pieces are based, describes what he calls a “huge charity gap” between the religious and non-religious. Among his findings are that
* On average, religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time and money. This is not just because of giving to churches—religious people are more generous than secularists towards explicitly non-religious charities as well. They are also more generous in informal ways, such as giving money to family members, and behaving honestly.
* The American working poor are, relative to their income, some of the most generous people in America today.
* Among Americans with above-average incomes who do not give charitably, a majority say that they ‘don’t have enough money.’ Meanwhile, the working poor in America give a larger percentage of their incomes to charity than any other income group, including the middle class and rich.
Taken together the pattern is that it’s religiosity (or the lack thereof), not beliefs about the size and scope of government — as Sowell and Stossel, who are both libertarian conservatives, are trying to argue — that best predicts how generous people will be. While you are right about the thinking of some liberals (supporting government programs plus some pocket change equals “generosity”), there’s little, if anything, in Brooks’s numbers to suggest that conservatives qua conservatives (i.e., secular conservatives) as distinct from conservatives who are religious, are any more generous than their secular liberal counterparts.
In fact, Brooks’s findings about the generosity of the working poor vis-a-vis the giving of the middle of the middle-and-upper-middle classes, if anything, mitigates against Sowell’s thesis. I doubt that you will find many small-government conservatives among even the most generous of the working poor. Certainly, there there’s a smaller percentage in this group than in the less-generous middle-and-upper-middle classes.
I suspect that what unites all these varieties of generosity is the disproportionate numbers of religious folk in the respective categories. If a “religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person” it’s because of Matthew 25, not The Road to Serfdom. (Having worked with Christian groups that minister to the homeless, in my experience they would have appreciated some help from government but, in obedience to Christ, were prepared to act with or without such assistance.)
Ultimately, what I’ve read of and about Brooks’s work confirms my opinion that the best and most humane thing about contemporary American conservatism is the presence of all those Christians. If you want a glimpse of what conservatism, left to its free-market fetishism, might be like without them, click here. (Warning: Not for the faint-hearted and beware of obnoxious pop-up ad.)
==============================
By John Stossel
Americans are pretty generous. Three-quarters of American families give to charity — and those who do, give an average of $1,800. Of course that means one-quarter of us don’t give at all. What distinguishes those who give from those who don’t? It turns out there are many myths about that.
To test them, ABC’s “20/20” went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco. We asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities. Which bucket would get more money? I’ll get to that in a minute.
San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to church every week.
San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and since liberals are said to “care more” about the poor, you might assume people in San Francisco would give a lot.
But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red — conservative — states in the last presidential election.
“When you look at the data,” says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, “it turns out the conservatives give about 30% more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.”
Researching his book, “Who Really Cares”, Brooks found that the conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:
“The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away.”
Conservatives are even 18% more likely to donate blood.
The second myth is that people with the most money are the most generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30% more as a share of their income.
Says Brooks: “The most charitable people in America today are the working poor.”
We saw that in Sioux Falls, S.D. The workers at the meat packing plant make about $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees there than anywhere else.
Note that Brooks said the “working” poor. The nonworking poor — people on welfare — are very different, even though they have the same income. The nonworking poor don’t give much at all.
What about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, when compared to both the rich and working poor in America, Brooks says, “They give less.”
When asked why, many say, “I don’t have enough money to spare.” But it’s telling that the working poor manage to give.
And the rich? What about America’s 400 billionaires? I’ll report on them in next week’s column.
Finally, Brooks says one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: “their religious participation.” Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money — four times as much.
But doesn’t that giving just stay within the religion?
“No,” says Brooks, “Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street.”
And what happened in our little test? Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier — three times as many people were within reach of the bucket — by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money.
Another myth bites the dust.
==============================
By John Stossel
I’ve pointed out in recent weeks that the American people are the most generous in the world.
But I was surprised to learn the working poor give a larger percentage of their income than the rich. Last week I did a TV special, “Cheap in America,” in which I playfully gave some billionaires a hard time about what they don’t give to charity.
Ted Turner is giving $1 billion to the United Nations. He got lots of great publicity for that, and he told me that he’d like to give away more, but he was too poor. “I’ve given away so much, and lost so much. It’s all I can do. I’m doing all I can. I’m worried about the viability of our Social Security. I want to be sure that I have enough money to make it through, you know, my old age, when I finally do retire, at about 95.”
But he still has $2 billion left. Isn’t that enough? “Not enough! Not in the way inflation — you know, I was worth $10 billion about four, five years ago, and I lost eight of it, so the other two could evaporate overnight.”
Dan Duncan had a different excuse. He’s made $7 billion by finding cheaper ways to pipe natural gas and oil from place to place. He and his wife have given millions to charity, but their gifts are only about 2% of his net worth.
I suggested that maybe he was “cheap,” and he answered: “Sometimes you’re better off to hold on to that money longer and make it bigger.” His wife, Jan, added, “It takes money to make money so that we’ll have more to give away.”
That may have sounded cheap to my TV audience, but it’s actually a pretty good reason for Duncan not to give to charity. Great business creators like Duncan and Turner waste their skills if they just give money away. They do more for the world by creating businesses. Turner started with 12 employees. By the time he merged CNN with Time Warner, he employed 12,000 people.
Is there a better way to help the poor than by creating jobs — opportunities for self-improvement? And when businesses make useful products cheaper and more plentiful, that helps the poor more than charity. Discount retailers like Wal-Mart help low-income people tremendously. Would Sam Walton have done as much for the poor by giving all his money to charity? I don’t think so.
That’s what T.J. Rodgers, founder of Cypress Semiconductor, thought when Turner gave $1billion to the United Nations, a bureaucracy famous for squandering money. “What he said is patently stupid,” Rodgers told me. “What he should do is take his money and invest it. And to have the companies and buildings and plants that are created with his investment create jobs and wealth and products for other people. So running around giving his money away is a way to maybe make himself feel good. But it sure as hell isn’t a good way to help people!”
It’s a shocking comment in this season of giving, but it’s also a good point. We lavish praise on the philanthropist, but you can’t give away what hasn’t been created.
Philosopher David Kelley put it this way. “Why do we think that giving away money is better than making money? Giving away money is a lot easier than building a new business or a new industry where you’ve created something that didn’t exist before. I have a lot more respect for Ted Turner for building CNN at a time when no one thought it was possible than I have for any possible good he could do as a philanthropist.”
I’ll still give 20% of my income to charity, because I’m not good at building businesses. But for those of you who are, no need to apologize for creating wealth.
==============================
Supplemental Articles in a separate file (click here to read)