It has been about two months since we have been a part of this course, we have engaged in countless meaningful discussions along the way which all serve to shaped and refined our understanding towards the subject of philanthropy. I find that I am very interested in the science behind why people give and the mentalities of them. So, in my issue post today, I would like to discuss the following topic with you guys: "What propels people to give?"
Some common answers we usually get are:
For the greater good.
Giving makes us feel happy.
Giving alleviates suffering.
Giving promotes cooperation and social connection.
Because everybody else is doing it.
Etc...
These reasons are not mutually exclusive. I think it is important to study people's incentives behind their actions, because it keeps what seems to be arbitrary and random in order when you assign them reasons.
First, let me share my personal thoughts. I had always been conflicted between the ideas of whether human beings are born selfish, due to the fact that we only feel what we feel, and the world always teaches us to maximize our own benefits throughout our lifetime. However, at the same time it seems that there is also an altruistic part built inside each one of us, which enables us to feel happiness when we give. In our reading assignment, "The Neuroscience of Giving" by Kristof & Wu Dunn, the article brought up a scientific research by Harvard University, the research conducted on Harvard graduates throughout the years concluded that one who gives a more percentage of income away to charity tends to live a more happy and healthy live. Besides, there are also studies that linked giving to the release of oxytocin, a hormone (also released during sex and breast feeding) that induces feelings of warmth, euphoria, and connection to others. These results are very fascinating to me, since it deviated from the worldly idea of "the more things you have, the more happy you are". But still, if giving money make people happy, why don't more people engage in giving as well? In my opinion, this could come down to the difference in people's mentality and disposition.
With all being said, I am stopping to believe that we are capable of choosing to be selfish or altruistic, instead, I think we are gravitated to do things that give us happiness. A person is constitute of many things, from his/her inborn quality, personal experience, education to the ideology he/she holds. Consequently, a person is naturally more predisposed to donate to some causes than others, causes that adhere more to the his/her mindsets and ideologies. This could be the reason why there are more people making charitable decisions based off their heart rather than head. Also, some people are susceptible to influence of others, such as peer pressure and social expectations, acts of donation can help improve one's prestige and social image, which incentivizes him/her to give.
In conclusion, I think people's decisions to give are subjected to people's disposition and how much happiness if bring to them. So here comes a philosophical question I am still dwelling on, do we give for them or for us, maybe both?
Above are my thoughts on why people engage in philanthropy and charity, what are yours? Feel welcomed to share you personal experience and ideas with me!
Sources:
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/5_ways_giving_is_good_for_you
https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2015/mar/23/the-science-behind-why-people-give-money-to-charity
Kristof & Wu Dunn, A Path Appears, Chapter 15, The Neuroscience of Giving
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022299422219#page-1
Hi JT,
ReplyDeleteThe question you bring up in your post is something that I have been pondering since the beginning of this class too, so thank you for touching on it.
My view on this topic is honestly quite confusing: I simultaneously believe that people are both inherently good, and that they are motivated by self gain. I am a cynic, but I also want to believe that people are selfless, and this has always been confusing to me. Before this class, I thought it couldn't be both and that I would have to decide. I have never really considered the possibility of a person being motivated by both personal gain, and the gain of another; an idea which might just be the confusing reality of the world of philanthropy. Therefore, in response to your question, I would have to say that philanthropic giving is motivated both by the happiness we gain from it, as well as the benefit of the recipient.
You mentioned the reading, “The Neuroscience of Giving,” which only furthered my opinion that people are selfish when it comes to philanthropic giving. The happiness people get as a result of giving and the rush of oxytocin into the brain further people’s self motivation to donate. Additionally, in the opening pages of “The Most Good You Can Do,” Peter Singer pushes people to become effective altruists because there is personal gain associated with it; it ‘makes you feel good.’ As a result, I find it hard to believe that people donate solely for the benefit of the other person, but because we gain something from giving.
On the other hand, I also believe that people give for the benefit of others. This is not only because I want in my heart for people to be good, but also for the reason that you mention: If there is such a benefit to donating, why doesn’t everyone do it? There has to be another motivating factor which pushes people to donate, and I believe this is the desire to help others. If you don’t care about who your money goes to or what you are paying for, then I truly don’t believe you would be motivated to give, and that you wouldn’t feel the positive response as a result - it would mean nothing to you.
At the end of the day, everyone is different, as are people’s reasons for donating. What is true for one is not true for all, and perhaps my theories do not include all those who donate. Overall however, I believe that philanthropic giving is a mixture between concern for oneself, and concern for others.
Hi JT,
ReplyDeleteWhat an interesting question you pose regarding philanthropy! Like Sarah mentioned, it is impossible to establish one over-arching reason behind why all philanthropists donate their time and/or resources. Although I agree that philanthropy involves a certain combination of self-gratification and concern for others, I believe that human compassion is a large factor in why people donate.
Although donating to an organization does bring a sense of joy and happiness to many, often times people aren't inclined to donate their time or resources because they would rather use their time or money to do other things that also bring them happiness. I believe it takes some sort of a push or incentive in many cases (not all, of course) to get people to donate.
This push or incentive may be a personal connection to a particular issue or organization, a sense of religious obligation, or a well made commercial that tugs at one's heart strings.
I believe that the best way to incentivize a person to give that doesn't involve a personal connection is through compassion. We, as humans are compassionate beings, and if we see someone or a group of people in need and have the ability to help them in some way, I believe we will try to alleviate their pain. This is demonstrated in the massive contributions made towards alleviating problems broadcasted on the news. The media is able to capture the attention and compassion of a large group of people, and this inspires many of this particular group to donate.
Joy, self-gratification, and helping others are the results of this compassion. I believe compassion is a major motivator of giving, and the best way to hone into this compassion is by grabbing the attention of a potential donor. Without this push, I don't believe many people without a personal connection to a particular organization or issue would feel inclined to donate.
Below I have attached an article about understanding how donors think, why people donate, and how grabbing potential donors' attention is an important first step in incentivizing them to give.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/giving/understanding-donor-behavior-to-increase-contributions.html
Hey JT,
ReplyDeleteI have been asking myself these exact same questions since I read "The Neuroscience of Giving." It is one of the most interesting articles we have read all semester. One of the most incredible stories was when they showed the downward spiral of a man who won the Mega Millions lottery. It showed us how happiness and altruism are linked. I think the most interesting question I had from reading your article was related to Peter Singer. Is it selfish to give to a charity that makes you happier than a charity that is more effective? Once again, the head vs heart debate. Singer would say it is selfish because it is ineffective. You spoke about how joy motivates people to donate. I am still a bit torn on this issue. On one hand, people are more likely to donate to things that make them happy. On the other hand, the article shows that any form of altruism leads to happiness so we should choose the most effective charities. It is amazing how philanthropy has led us to discussions on neuroscience, philosophy, and morality. Great post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi JT,
ReplyDeleteThis discussion reminds me of a question raised during a philosophy class I took last semester, revolving around the importance of intentions versus actions when doing good. I learned of one philosophy called utilitarianism that might aim to end this conversation. You speak about the happiness of others in contrast to our own happiness, but utilitarianism demands that our actions be based purely on maximizing the greater good, the happiness of all people. One's intentions don’t matter so long as their actions achieve that goal.
Deontology, on the other hand, highlights the relevance of intentions - or as it was put by philosopher Immanuel Kant, “maxims.” Doing good isn’t just about what you do, but also why you do it. What’s interesting about deontology, though, is that it asserts both one’s intentions and actions must adhere to some absolute good in order for the entire situation to be good. Therefore, it would be wrong to give to charity out of selfish intentions, regardless of the help one provided.
Both philosophies show single-mindedness in some way, and so I believe do any claims that limit the reasons why we give. There’s no denying that some - if not all - of us do it partially for self-gratification. I personally love fundraising, and have taken part in various tabling events over the past two semesters. However, while I ask for money on behalf of a cause, I can’t help but feel personally gratified when my persuasion brings in a donation. Or think of our in-class charity pitches. I can’t help but assume the winners are happy not just for their charity, but for achieving some success and having their presentation skills validated.
This isn’t to say we act purely for ourselves. Human beings aren’t one-dimensional. We are inherently social creatures, and with that fact come several explanations for our (occasional) generous tendencies. As animals, we aim to preserve our own, and are inclined towards social connectivity, against the dangers of conflict. Humans’ instinctual “tribe mentality” can also help explain why we give to certain groups in particular. There was a time when people only aimed to protect their gene pool; that has widened to those we are familiar with. This could give a reason why we’re drawn to our own local organizations, or organizations that we have personal connections to.
But what about the organizations with which we aren’t so familiar? That’s where one of our favorite topics - the Heart - comes into play. Often, we give out of empathy. People constantly question whether we’re inherently selfish or altruistic, but we are biologically inclined to be empathetic. According to the article linked below, when a part of the brain called the right supramarginal gyrus is damaged, “one’s ability for empathy is dramatically reduced.” Furthermore, we have mirror neurons in our brain that cause us to identify with others’ pain. These can serve as biological motivators to reach out and help those in need.
Ultimately, I believe donors are motivated both by selfish reasons and altruism to some extent. It’s hard for me to think a person wouldn't subliminally aim for the self-gratification. However, good deeds often promote good intentions, and people typically feel a connection to others, so it’s also hard for me to think selfishness could stand alone.
Article link:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/the-neuroscience-empathy
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi JT!
ReplyDeleteI believe that this post is very thought provoking and interesting. I agree that there are many aspects and reasons to why people give. Some give because they are naturally motivated to give though I think that others are pressured into giving. I truly believe that we are born with some innate qualities but I also think that the society and the values that we grow up in will certainly influence how we operate in our lives. I believe this extends to the way we give. It is true that the world has told us that we need to accumulate as much as we can, whether that be money, food etc. As such this becomes apart of who we are as individuals and essentially can determine how some of us respond to giving.
I think another viewpoint we could take is that society teaches us to compete with each other and therefore some may view giving as decreasing their ability to compete with another individual. I do believe there are two sides of the giving spectrum, those that give out of selfish motives and those that genuinely give because they want to help. I think giving can make a person happy but even then it doesn’t mean they genuinely wanted to give and so this temporary feeling of happiness may not influence them enough to be constantly engaged in giving. I also completely agree that people are more likely to give if they feel pressured by their friends. After all, one’s imagine is important to most people and they will do what they must to protect or create the image of themselves that they want to be perceived by others.
Here is an article of an interview talking about what motivates people to give:
https://www.npr.org/2014/12/22/372526891/what-motivates-people-to-give
Take a look!