Charity And Philanthropy

When my children were young I gave them allowances. That's the norm, isn't it? I stipulated, however, how the money was to be used: half could go as spending money, a quarter was to be savings, and the remaining quarter was for tzedakah. That's charity. No “earnings” wholly belonged to them. From the first time they received an “income” they knew that they had a responsibility to share it with those not so fortunate. Helping others is a never ending duty. Even now, every morning at religious services I set aside money for tzedakah. It has nothing to do with other charity I give, but is a daily obligation.

Supporting the less fortunate is a religious obligation that derives, for western faiths, from the Bible (though I'm certain the same view is a part of eastern cultures as well). According to Deuteronomy (11:15), For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command thee saying: “Thou shall surely open thy hand unto they poor and needy brother, in thy land.” (Jewish Publication Society, 1951) Although tithing is a way of life among many, especially Mormons, initially it was primarily for the support of the Levites who were caring for the Temple when it existed. In Judaism the Rabbis made it clear however that, even though the Temple no longer existed, we were all responsible for supporting the needy. That's what charity is all about. Indeed, the poor themselves were obliged to set aside a portion of the funds they received as charity for the support of those even less fortunate than themselves.

Philanthropy, however, is different. It is practiced, for the most part, by those with large incomes – though even those of modest means can participate – for the goal of philanthropy is to establish means to help communities, rather than individuals, although individuals will benefit from the efforts. A philanthropist may support a university, a hospital, an orchestra, or some similar kind of endeavor. Andrew Carnegie, for example, established libraries around the United States while Bill Gates funds organizations dedicated to improve health care globally. When I was in college – a long time ago – we joked about the plaques that decorated virtually everything around us, whether buildings or microscopes, and which attested to the generosity of the philanthropists who made our education possible. They didn't give us money, but they aided us as we learned how to earn our own. And that philanthropy is the highest form of charity. Maimonides compiled a list of charitable acts in order of their significance and the highest was Giving money, a loan, your time, or whatever else it takes to enable an individual to be self reliant. That's the way the American Institute of Philanthropy (https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-articles/eight-rungs-of-the-giving-ladder/73) phrased it.

The same idea, of course, exists in other cultures. While its origin isn't clear, the meaning of the following adage is: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Charity is certainly useful and necessary for dealing with an immediate and compelling circumstance, but it is not a long-term treatment. That's what philanthropy is. The Hershey Trust, established by Milton Hershey in 1905, for example, administers a twelve billion dollar endowment for the Milton Hershey School, and thereby underprivileged children are able to get a level of education that would have been denied them. The long-term benefits of that education for the many generations of children involved, and for society in general, are incalculable. Philanthropic gifts like that are far beyond our individual abilities, but they provide services not funded by the government.

It begins as charity for those who start out with only a little, but it may ultimately turn into philanthropy. The same people who give a little, give a lot when they have it. Every now and then you're likely to read in the paper about someone with a low-paying job who died and left a huge amount, a lifetime of savings to some important cause – often a university or a hospital. There may have been smaller charitable contributions along the way but they're of no interest to anyone but the recipients. They may have an impact on the individual beneficiaries, but it's nothing compared to what society gets from the larger philanthropic enterprise.

According to Professor Arthur Brooks (Syracuse University) in his book Who Really Cares, contributions of money, time, and expertise are more likely to come from church-goers than those who don't attend. And those with a close family life and givers as role models. That's not much of a surprise. It's interesting, however, that even many of the poor give (what they can, even it it's a small amount) – usually those who have earned what they have, rather than received it through welfare or another program that doesn't require their work. Similarly, those who have earned fortunes rather than inherited them are more likely to help both individuals and institutions, as are political conservatives.

Liberals tend to be less liberal with their own money than with that of others. (It should be noted that Brooks's work is based on many surveys of donations to individuals and institutions.) There is a common view among them that the government should care for the poor, and that the part of their taxes that supports these efforts constitutes their charity, so they are obligated to little else. (There are, of course, numerous exceptions to these rules, but the profiles of both the non-givers and the generous are well supported. And “exceptions” are exceptions.) But if the government is not doing enough, higher taxes on the rich (who already give proportionally more besides what they pay in taxes) should solve the problem.

The aid given by governments, however, is neither charitable nor philanthropic. It is merely the furtherance of a “right” to be supported. And governments are usually less interested in supporting the efforts of larger institutions that may be serving the public good, unless it is in the interest of a group of a lawmaker's constituents, or a generous lobbyist.

There's a place for both charity and philanthropy. A valued place. Voluntary rather than coerced giving ranks far higher in any rating of the levels of unselfishness, and it is our generosity as individuals that defines us – not our expectations of the government or of others. If we expect others to do it, it won't get done. If you want something done properly, do it yourself.