Thomas Cannon: The Benefits Of Giving Aids

Emily Andrews argues in her essay “Why I Don’t Spare “Spare Change”” that it does more harm than good to give money to beggars on the street rather than giving to an organization such as United Way to help the needy, pointing out that “one cannot be certain that one is giving to a needy individual” and that by giving to a charitable organization “ones money is likely to be used wisely.”

Mark Twain says greed is another of man’s failings. Of course, man is somewhat greedy. But, lots of men know how to control their greed, and also know to do favor for others. In other words, they are thoughtful (kind) and have mercy. For this moment, numberless charities are gathering the helpers and donations to support others who suffer by hunger and poorness. For a common example, there’s UNICEF. They work for saving children in hunger, teach them basic education and gender equality, try to prevent HIV & AIDS to children, protect children from violence, exploitation and abuse, and do policy advocacy and partnerships. They do these things only for the needy.

He illustrates, “Of every thousand dollars spent in so-called charity to-day, it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent; so spent, indeed, as to produce the very evils which it proposes to mitigate or cure” (494).

In Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth”, he believes that when it comes to giving aid, the key principle should be to help the individuals willing to help themselves. During this document, he made the statement “…for in almsgiving more injury is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue”. To Carnegie, just giving money and items to those who were supposedly in need, was not helpful. It was not helpful because many individuals who gave to those in need, do not really know the true conditions of the “needy”. This leads to those

Throughout the Age of AIDS film many topics that were related to AIDS were brought up that I did not know anything about before. I did not know that there could so many strings attached to a disease and have such an influence in people’s lives whether it was negative or positive.

Everyone has something to give. What is given can be quantified in many different ways. Some people give ideas. Some people give their loyalty. For others, their effort and hard-work. Few though, are able to give what men like Andrew Carnegie were able to give; hope. That hope, however, came in the form of money. Building wealth is no easy task but giving that wealth away for the benefit of society, is the ultimate good that can be done with it. Carnegie wasn’t the only, or even the first to realize the importance of philanthropy. Johns Hopkins and John Rockefeller were two other very important players throughout American history that were instrumental in improving the society we live in today. With the current climate that Americans find themselves

knowledge through my experience and helping less fortunate made me a better person. It changes my perception on how and why I see the world and the people around me. I become a well-rounded person, it opened my hearts to understand and taught me a better way to connect with people.

In the 1980s, a mysterious disease began to take the lives of Americans. With the cause unknown, a fear grew among Americans. An unusually high rate of people was becoming sick with strange and rare diseases. When experimental treatments failed to work, people died. This mysterious disease is what we now know as HIV–Human Immunodeficiency Virus. In the past thirty-five years, the HIV has taken many turns in history. Although we do not hear about HIV and AIDS now, it is still a prevalent issue in the United States and in the world.

It might come as a surprise to learn that the government is subsidizing what Robert Reich has called a “plutocratic bias” in the charitable sector at a steep cost to the national treasury. This is in large part because the charitable tax deduction, which serves as the charitable sector’s primary financing mechanism, creates tax incentive structures for donors that are steeply regressive. In 2012, tax subsidies to the charitable sector cost the government more than $50 billion in lost tax revenue. Given the billions of dollars in government subsidies and donations, it seems only reasonable to ask if this sector actually supports “charity” by meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged in our society, which is what we have historically

In Ronald O. Valdiserri’s article “Thirty Years of AIDs in America: A Story of Infinite Hope,” it is said that we have data that shows we have improved in our prevention of AIDs/HIVs diseases over the years. However, Valdiserri’s article also points out that these statistics contained data resulted from inadequate or incomplete information, which makes me question how much do we really know about the improvements being identified.

Thoreau had a unique look on philanthropy. He calls philanthropy overrated due to the degree of selfishness involved. He uses the example of the poor man looking up to the kind man for helping him. Which is something that we currently do today, but Thoreau did not see it that way. He found it absurd that people looked up to kind people for actions that benefitted them rather than look up to spiritual people who were the true helpers. He is not completly against being charitable, he just feels that it should be an actual help instead of a cover up. Also, he mentioned that giving money to people with rags will just allow them to

In the list of the contributions you will find all different types of positive aspects from the learning perspective. One is " The recognition that we all influence others and in turn are influenced by others everyday of our lives whether we know it or

Helping people is a noble thing to do especially when it comes to the application of natural justice, where human beings help those who are suffering. There is always a hidden intention in every action that is obscured by the notion of philanthropy. Returned favors expectation might not be the ultimate intention as to why people may perform an act (Michael, 1978). However, it will be illogical to say that these intentions were

He suggests that money given to a charity could morally bring about the same type of satisfaction, than if going on vacation or spending money on a video games (Singer 336.) Singer also suggests that often time’s society is afraid of where their money will end up or how it will be use when donated. Singer names four charities that are in existence which are single-handedly devoted to improving the lives of those less fortunate (Singer 337.)

In today’s society, we are blessed with various forms of philanthropy and different ways to achieve this philanthropic culture. When many people think of the term philanthropy, they immediately think of donating money to charities and other non-profit organizations. That is not necessarily the case because an individual can do philanthropy in a variety of different ways. For instance, they can do anything from taking part in or making an organization for the less fortunate. They can even participate in any form of community service that helps ‘people in that community’. Since philanthropy is all about “civic engagement, essentially social reform and community building.” Therefore, philanthropists need to connect with people and go beyond