I have been thinking about this lately and I am interested to hear your thoughts. The question is: Should philanthropy have a face? Should people who give make themselves known to everyone else or is it in fact better that philanthropy remain faceless? For the good of everyone which do you think is better and why?
I'm rather fond of the idea of doing good deeds anonymously… Things get complicated when gratitude *to an individual* is warranted ~ but when knowing your benefactor is impossible ~ I don't know… it just makes it easier to accept. And go out and do your own good deeds in return instead of trying to 'make it up' to any one person.
powered by Yahoo Answers
6 Responses for "Should philanthropy have a face?"
NO.
Or else the philanthropic act is not truly altruistic/selfless.
References :
personal views.
No when you help others, it returns 10 fold. ego causes falls
References :
Self grandeur through tax evasion
References :
Faceless is better. May your left hand not know what the right hand is giving. Spiritual or psychic progress depends a lot on loss of ego.
References :
Philanthropy should be viral, meaning nobody should be allowed to help the homeless who HASN'T BEEN THERE, etc. If charities were BY AND FOR those in need, they wouldn't be so patronizing and screwed up. The rich should help the rich find therapy rather than throwing feel good money at the poor.
References :
I'm rather fond of the idea of doing good deeds anonymously… Things get complicated when gratitude *to an individual* is warranted ~ but when knowing your benefactor is impossible ~ I don't know… it just makes it easier to accept. And go out and do your own good deeds in return instead of trying to 'make it up' to any one person.
References :
Leave a reply