Hi everyone!
As you all know, we have discussed and debated over why
people give, what the best way of giving is, and which organizations are the
most effective at giving. As crucial as all of these discussions are to our
process of developing into effective philanthropists, I believe we are leaving
out an important part of the philanthropic equation—who do we give to, and why?
It is not uncommon, based on my experiences, for people to
be reluctant to give money to a homeless person on the street. Often times, if
you question this reluctance, the response will be something along the lines of,
“He/she will only use my money for drugs or alcohol anyways.” This response reflects
the widespread stigma many of us have against not only the homeless, but also
against addicts, and that many assume all homeless individuals must be addicts.
Although many homeless individuals do suffer from addiction,
not all are affected by this issue. But even if the entire homeless population
did consist of addicts, why does this matter? By labeling individuals as
addicts and withholding donations to this particular group of people, are we
condemning them as unworthy of philanthropic assistance?
In a study titled “I’m Moral But I Won’t Help You: The
Distinct Rules of Empathy and Justice in Donations,” 600 people were asked to
choose to donate to one of two potential recipients in a hospital: one who was
unable to pay for their medical care due to their low-wage job with poor
benefits or to an individual who couldn’t afford to pay for medical care due to
their unemployment as a result of their drug and alcohol abuse. Overwhelmingly,
the more “worthy” candidate (the person suffering from low-wages and poor
benefits) received donations. This study reveals many people’s inherent desire
to help those who are deemed deserving, and our natural bias against addicts
and those whom we assume are responsible for their own misfortune. Rather than
helping these individuals get back on their feet, we’d rather donate to a
worthier cause because we feel they are responsible for their own failure. Generally,
we don’t like giving second chances because we have a lack of trust between
donor and grantee. This explains why many people are reluctant to donate to
Give Directly—they are concerned that the recipients will spend the money granted
to them on frivolous items and, ultimately, that their money won’t go towards
resolving the over-arching issue at hand.
In a society that largely buys into the concept of meritocracy
(the “American Dream”), it is easy for us to lack sympathy for those we believe
are responsible for their own downward plight. Unfortunately, many alcoholics
and drug addicts are considered to fall into this category. Of course, no one
chooses to be an addict, however, many allot blame towards those who experiment
with drugs and subsequently become addicts despite the fact that not all
addiction originates from experimentation. However, because we assume that they
are responsible for their lack of success, we are more willing to donate to
those we feel are blameless victims to their unfortunate conditions—such as
animals, children, and natural disaster victims. Although these causes are
definitely important and should be addressed, addiction is also a valid and
widespread problem in our society that needs addressing but is often neglected.
I believe in order to be effective philanthropists, we need
to go into every donation process with an open heart and open mind devoid of
bias. We must ignore stigmas and rationally decide where we believe our money
or time is most needed, whether that be in an organization supporting childhood
education or an organization helping recovering addicts. All issue areas should
be equally valued and equally considered in the donation process, and personal
blame of the victim for their circumstances should not be taken into account.
Although it can be hard to trust someone who has made many mistakes in their
past, we need to put our trust in the credible and effective organizations we
donate to that help these individuals. Who are we to distinguish between who does
or does not deserve to live a comfortable and happy life? And why can’t this privilege
be something everyone is entitled to? At the end of the day, an individual in
need is an individual in need, and as philanthropists we should attempt to
alleviate the suffering of as many different people as we can, regardless of
their potential past mistakes.
Here is the study on deserving versus non-deserving
recipients: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2438279
Here is a Forbes article discussing the results of the study
and bias within philanthropy: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2014/06/30/what-makes-people-generous-charity-empathy-and-story-telling/#65f449927cba
Hi Allyson,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your interesting post!
I agree with your statement about people’s reluctance to donate to drug-addicted homeless people because of the concern that they will use the money to buy drugs; this is something that I often think about myself when I see homeless people asking for money. However, I’m not sure that I believe this is a question of how deserving the person is in terms of philanthropic aid; at least not completely. The article talks about a decreased sense of empathy towards this group of people because they caused their own problems, and this is therefore why fewer donations are given for their benefit. While I think this could play a role for part of why drug addicts receive fewer donations, it seems hard for me to believe that philanthropists (people who want to help others in need) would reduce a person to their problems, and not take into consideration the person underneath. Maybe it is a subconscious human reaction, and perhaps I am just naïve and trying to see the good in people, but it seems almost uncharacteristic for a group of people concerned for the well-being of others to single out someone as “undeserving.”
Instead of it being because the person is seen as undeserving, I would argue the possibility that drug addicted homeless people do not receive as many donations because they are not seen as a good investment, For example, people thinking like effective altruists are looking to donate to a cause where their money will create the greatest impact. Unfortunately, donating to a person who might use the money to buy drugs is not a sound investment when compared to the person on Medicare with a low-wage job. This is not necessarily a mindset I agree with, but I believe in this instance the drug addict is recognized as someone in need of help, but cannot be as effectively helped as the other person. From another perspective, I know I often ponder the idea that if I donate to the homeless person who then goes to buy drugs, I am only an enabler who has helped them worsen their drug problem. This does not help them in any way, and can only make their situation worse. In this case, it is not because they are not worthy, but because I am worried for how the money could be a hazard to their safety. By this I mean, I believe there could be other factors that lead to decreased donations to the drug-addicted homeless, and it is not solely because people label them as undeserving.
Overall, I agree that it should not matter if homeless people are addicts are not, and we as philanthropists do not have the right to say who should receive aid and who should not. I strongly believe that if a person is in need, they deserve the help from others no matter what their situation is. While I’m not sure I believe that people are being labeled as undeserving, I do believe that it is unfair for any group of people to receive fewer donations for any reason whatsoever. All in all, no matter what someone is suffering through, and no matter what their problems are, these people are still human and deserve to be given the same opportunities as everyone else. They deserve to be treated like humans, and not the problem that they might have.
Allyson,
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the stigma of helping the homeless I think you hit the nail on the head. It’s true that many people are reluctant to give when they are unaware of where or what their contributions would go towards. I, myself, have personally spoke about these issues with my father when I was younger. My father’s response to my inquiries were always the same- he rather see his money go towards an organization so that it is in the hands of someone he “trusts” than in the hands of someone unpredictable. The story he always shares is that one time when we had lived in D.C. there had been a man on the street begging for money. My dad; not wanting to contribute to any drug or alcohol problems, decided that he would buy the man a sandwich instead. Ten minutes later he had returned to the corner and given the man the sandwich. Ten seconds after that the man hit my father square in the head with the same sandwich. I guess you could say a sandwich just wasn’t what the man had ordered. (To clarify, he hadn’t ordered anything, my dad just brought him a sandwich without asking) This one occurrence caused my father to swear off giving to homeless people on the street; something we still don’t quite see eye to eye on.
A little less than a year ago I read a story about 19-year-old Tyler McGlothlin and the challenges he and his family have had to endure since the economic collapse of his town. Tyler, like those we are discussing here, came to a point in his life where holding a sign was a last resort. As a society I fear that we can sometimes judge people like Tyler too hastily. People who have checked all the boxes: “He had avoided the traps that had ensnared so many others around him. He hadn’t gotten a girl pregnant. He hadn’t used drugs, like his brother, now incarcerated, as well. He had graduated high school, something neither of his parents had done, then married his girlfriend, Morgan, who was 17. And after securing financial aid and buying a car with money saved from work, he started welding classes at a community college nearly an hour’s drive away.” Sometimes we forget to acknowledge that many people feel like they just have to live with the hand they’re dealt. In Tyler’s case his father’s incarceration combined with a car crash that left him without a car or license was that “hand”. He had to drop out of school, he had to take care of his mom, he had mouths to feed. With no way out and having been turned away by multiple employers he was left with just the option to stand on the street corner and hold a sign.
There are many more people out there who share Tyler’s story, but we can never be certain of who they are because we wouldn’t have the time to find out if we were just driving by them. In my opinion, by giving money to someone on the street your odds of helping someone are greater than the odds of harming someone. In other words, for every man who will throw the sandwich at your head there must be several Tyler’s out there. Of course, it is my belief in humanity that causes me to believe that and so, who knows, at the end of the day I could be quite wrong. However, I’d like to believe that even if my money is going to waste that I might help one family, one child, one life. One person that deserves a chance to grow up in a country that has promised them at least the ability to pursue happiness. Who am I to deny anyone that right? It is because of this that I choose to believe in the good of people or at least in their potential to do good. I do not want to fault anyone because of the hand they have been dealt just like how I would not anyone to fault me for mine. However, in the current state of our society I don’t know if a belief in humanity will fix this stigma. I guess that in the event it cannot than that’s what philanthropists like us exist for; to help without the constraint of such a stigma.
Tyler's Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2017/07/21/how-disability-benefits-divided-this-rural-community-between-those-who-work-and-those-who-dont/?utm_term=.47551fb2cc84
Allyson,
ReplyDeleteYour post brings up a great point about who society deems is "worthy" to receive philanthropy. Your point about addiction resonated with me. As I spoke about in my charity pitch, my hometown has a serious drug abuse problem. One of the main hindrances to stopping this problem is that people blame the addicts for their addictions making them feel like they have no one to turn to. An interesting discussion about addiction is currently happening in the neurological world. Neurologists are beginning to classify addiction as a "disease" that addicts suffer from. If we begin to view addicts as people who suffer from diseases rather than "bad people," I think our perspective on helping them would change. In recent years, I have seen a greater amount of people begin to understand and empathize with addicts. However, like the “I’m Moral But I Won’t Help You: The Distinct Rules of Empathy and Justice in Donations" study found, I think people would still donate to non-addicts and consider them more "worthy." There needs to be a lot more done in ending the stigma of alcohol and drug addiction but I feel like we are slowly getting there. Thank you for your post. It was an interesting read.
Hi Allyson,
ReplyDeleteThank you for introducing this topic of "worthiness" in philanthropy; yet another concept which connects back to the discussion of head versus heart. Are we allowed to judge who is worthy of our donation? Should our philanthropy follow our feelings and judgments, or some higher, moral law?
Faced with the situation of donating to a medical patient as described in the article, I believe our moral compass encourages us to donate to the cause, but our desire for psychological gratitude pushes us to the patient who is deemed “more worthy.” A famous psychological study by Langer in 1987 showed that when humans are presented a request, they are more likely to grant the request if there is a reason. In this way, I think humans desire the logical comfort of doing something for a “cause.” Paralleled in the philanthropic scenario, people gravitate towards the cause which they find has a “better reason” to support. Thus, the patient whose unfortunate scenario was not his own fault gets a better rap than the one whose scenario is perceived as his own fault.
We must not let our desire to feel good about our decisions decide what kind of good we can do. Otherwise, the drug addicts, homeless, etc. will go ignored, while the cute dogs and sad kids accumulate funds. Actually, I believe that the most ignored, cast-aside people are the ones most in need of help.
In Ancient Greek customs, households were encouraged to look after strangers in need, who could really be Greek gods in disguise. In the stories, disguised gods proclaimed either reward or condemnation upon the hosts depending on their level of hospitality. The Ancient Greeks called this value "Xenia," or "guest-hospitality." Perhaps we ought to bring this lesson from the Greeks into the new age.
Sources:
https://jamesclear.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/copy-machine-study-ellen-langer.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_(Greek)
Allyson,
ReplyDeleteYou present an interesting analysis of a situation that attempts to explain the reasoning for our giving preferences. You present a sophie's choice situation where you either save a person who is too poor to pay their medical bills because they don’t make enough money, or a person who cant pay because of their drug addiction. You make the argument that we as people see the addict as less deserving because the drug addict is responsible for their own failure and we inherently don’t trust people enough to give the addict a “second chance.”
I have an alternative view, I saw this situation as the people who would have abandoned the drug addict are lacking empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. It’s not just the people who didn’t choose the drug addict, it is just our society. I will explain, we are pretty average people and I am guessing that most of us aren’t drug addicts. Therefore we do not look at the drug addict like we would look at eachother. We see a drug addict as something lesser than us, we do not treat them like we treat each other. There are certain things in our culture that cause us to look at another human as less than us. Some examples: drug addiction, mental health issues, race, socioeconomic status, intelligence. Everyone has something that causes us to subconsciously view another person as less than us. You said we place blame on them, and I agree that we blame them for things that are out of their control.
Hi Allyson!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your well thought of post.
In my opinion, we are all equal, whether we are educated or uneducated, rich or poor, addicts or none addicts. The sad truth is that it is our nature as humans to judge a person by their past or their current situation, when we are the same people who often make mistakes and find ourselves in undesirable positions.
On the other hand, everyone has the freewill to choose to whom or where they want to donate their money. However, therein lies a problem when this decision is made on judgement of a person and our classification of these individuals as worthy or unworthy of our charitable dollars. So to answer your question, is everyone deserving of philanthropy, I say YES, everyone!
There is especially a lot of stigma surrounding mental health with persons playing the blame game with such individuals such as addicts and this should definitely not be the case. It is unfair for us to assume the circumstances of a person by what we see and in turn withhold assistance from them because of our bias. Addicts should not be classified in a group of unworthy of our philanthropy. They are people as well and whether or not they influenced their situation by their own action, they matter too.
Hey Allyson,
ReplyDeleteWhat an interesting topic you brought up! I have dwelled on this topic after we saw a lack of support towards the organizations related to drug rehabilitation in class when we were voting for the finalists. The stigma we have against drug related problems definitely played a part in our decisions. For many of us, it was partly the stigma that resulted in a lack of sympathy towards drug addicts, but it was more about the feeling that there are other places where our money could achieve more.
As philanthropic givers, we all are aware that “Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime.” People tend to hold back when they don’t think they can effectively help the beneficiaries with their money. A drug addict for instance, has probabilities of relapsing after his rehabilitation. So, if I put medical staff around him, with good medication and living environment, what if he reuses again? No matter how much resource is used to help them, if the addiction relapses, all the efforts would be in vain. The same with homeless people, if they don’t work hard on their part, there is pretty much nothing we can do to help them. So, “if we can’t help them, don’t help them as all.” That is many people’s mindset.
Despite the fact that this act of generalization is not entirely fair, I do think it is reasonable from the standpoint of the maximization of utility of the donation. But at the same time, I agree with your idea that people in many cases are not responsible for their addiction or homelessness and we should not hold prejudice against helping them. So, it comes down to this in my opinion, as an effective philanthropist, we are responsible to spend our resources effectively. Like you said, when we make a donation, we should concentrate more on what changes it would bring and let go of our inherent stigma against certain groups of people. So. If we want to alleviate the issue of homeless and drug abuse, it is essential to find the right organizations that are effective, which aims at the root causes of the issues. This way, we can do the most good.