Go shout it from the mountain
Peter Singer, Straits Times 16 Jun 08;
JESUS said we should give alms in private rather than when others are watching.
That fits with the common-sense idea that if people do good only in public, they may be motivated by a desire to gain a reputation for generosity. Perhaps when no one is looking, they are not generous at all.
That thought may lead us to disdain the kind of philanthropic graffiti that leads to donors' names being prominently displayed at concert halls, museums and colleges.
Often, names are stuck not only over the building, but also on as many constituent parts of it as fund-raisers and architects can manage.
According to evolutionary psychologists, such displays of blatant benevolence are the human equivalent of the male peacock's tail.
Just as the peacock signals its strength and fitness by displaying its tail, so costly public acts of benevolence signal to potential mates that one possesses enough resources to give so much away.
From an ethical view, however, should we care so much about the purity of the motive with which the gift was made? Surely what matters is that something was given to a good cause. We may look askance at a lavish new concert hall, but not because the donor's name is chiselled into the marble facade.
Rather, we should ask whether, in a world in which 25,000 impoverished children die unnecessarily every day, another concert hall is what the world needs.
A large body of current psychological research points against Jesus' advice. A significant factor determining whether people give to charity is what others are doing. Those who make it known that they give to charity raise the likelihood that others will do the same.
Perhaps we will eventually reach a tipping point at which giving a huge sum to help the world's poorest becomes sufficiently widespread to eliminate the majority of those 25,000 needless daily deaths.
That is what Chris and Anne Ellinger hope their website, www.boldergiving.org, will achieve. The website tells the story of more than 50 members of the 50 per cent League - people who have given away either 50 per cent of their assets or their income in each of the past three years.
The league wants to change expectations over what is a 'normal' or 'reasonable' amount to give.
It is a diverse group. Mr Tom White ran a big construction company and started giving millions to Mr Paul Farmer's efforts to bring health services to Haiti's rural poor.
Mr Tom Hsieh and his wife, Bree, made a commitment to live on less than the national median income in the United States, now US$46,000 (S$63,500) a year. As Mr Hsieh earned more, he and his wife gave away more, mostly to groups helping the poor in developing countries.
Mr Hal Taussig and his wife gave away about US$3 million, or 90 per cent of their assets, and now live on their social security cheques.
Most donors see giving as personally rewarding. Mr Hsieh said whether or not his giving has saved the lives of others, it has saved his own: 'I could easily have lived a life that was boring and inconsequential. Now, I am graced with a life of service and meaning.'
When people praise Mr Taussig for his deed, he says: 'Frankly, it is my way of getting kicks out of life.'
The 50 per cent League sets the bar high - perhaps too high. Mr James Hong started www.hot
ornot.com, a site that allows people to rate how 'hot' other people are. It made him rich. He has pledged to give away 10 per cent of everything he earns above US$100,000. His website, www.10over100.org, invites others to do likewise. So far, more than 3,500 people have.
Mr Hong sets the bar low. If you earn under US$100,000, you do not have to give anything, and if you earn US$110,000, you would have to give away only US$1,000 - less than 1 per cent of your income. That is not generous at all.
Many of those earning less than US$100,000 can also afford to give. Mr Hong's formula is simple, and it starts to bite when earnings get really big. If you earn US$1 million a year, you have pledged to give US$90,000, or 9 per cent of what you earn, which is more than what most rich people give.
We need to get over our reluctance to speak openly about the good we do. Silent giving will not change a culture that deems it sensible to spend all your money on yourself and your family, rather than to help those in greater need - even though helping others is likely to be more fulfilling in the long run.
The writer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University.
Project Syndicate
