Poverty, Dignity, and Charity Discussion Questions
1. The proposed end goal for most NGOs and charities is to provide aid to people in need across the world. This could be for victims or natural disasters or deadly political conflicts. The end for these organizations is to get the economies of these nations, or the victims of these disasters, back on their feet and be able to provide for themselves once more (it could be argued that this is completely false, and all these organizations are trying to do is make some money via charity, which is a plausible argument). However, it is clear by looking at the economies and societies of these countries that were devastated that this aid has not done much, and it may have made things worse. By introducing …show more content…
Charity has always been the face of good deeds. Giving millions to a charity, shows one’s wisdom and selflessness, and thus society appreciates and loves them more. This is ever so common with celebrities and Hollywood, as the most popular celebrities, such as Angelina Jolie, are infamous for their work with the third world. Society considers people as greedy or selfish if they do not give to charity or hide that they did (such as with Donald Trump, when he was exposed for investing thousands into his school, when he said it was going to charity). So it is no wonder that these NGOs and charities make a pretty penny off of this societal norm. While most citizens, and some NGOs, are victim of falling into this trap of the signaling theory, those who set the trap deserve their share of criticism. The politicians and charities who created NGOs and companies that make millions off the disadvantages of those devastated in disasters are mainly at fault for this false perception. Instead of awaring the populous about the negative side effects of charity, they continue to play commercial of starving African children to win the hearts of sympathetic individuals, whom are more than willing to invest a fraction of their earnings into these organizations. In my opinion, the current charity and foreign aid system is deeply flawed, and many more effective ways of dealing with world crises could be mustered. However, until the masses of the United States become aware of the downsides of charity, this system of charity will likely continue to have its
1. The proposed end goal for most NGOs and charities is to provide aid to people in need across the world. This could be for victims or natural disasters or deadly political conflicts. The end for these organizations is to get the economies of these nations, or the victims of these disasters, back on their feet and be able to provide for themselves once more (it could be argued that this is completely false, and all these organizations are trying to do is make some money via charity, which is a plausible argument). However, it is clear by looking at the economies and societies of these countries that were devastated that this aid has not done much, and it may have made things worse. By introducing …show more content…
Charity has always been the face of good deeds. Giving millions to a charity, shows one’s wisdom and selflessness, and thus society appreciates and loves them more. This is ever so common with celebrities and Hollywood, as the most popular celebrities, such as Angelina Jolie, are infamous for their work with the third world. Society considers people as greedy or selfish if they do not give to charity or hide that they did (such as with Donald Trump, when he was exposed for investing thousands into his school, when he said it was going to charity). So it is no wonder that these NGOs and charities make a pretty penny off of this societal norm. While most citizens, and some NGOs, are victim of falling into this trap of the signaling theory, those who set the trap deserve their share of criticism. The politicians and charities who created NGOs and companies that make millions off the disadvantages of those devastated in disasters are mainly at fault for this false perception. Instead of awaring the populous about the negative side effects of charity, they continue to play commercial of starving African children to win the hearts of sympathetic individuals, whom are more than willing to invest a fraction of their earnings into these organizations. In my opinion, the current charity and foreign aid system is deeply flawed, and many more effective ways of dealing with world crises could be mustered. However, until the masses of the United States become aware of the downsides of charity, this system of charity will likely continue to have its