Charity is Not a Contest
Being charitable is one of the least selfish things in the world. Someone who is charitable is constantly giving up resources of their own to further improve someone else's life. This is the definition of charity. Or is it? Nowadays, it is a common practice to offer incentives to promote "charitable" acts. Teachers offer bonus points on tests, and tax deductions are received based on a person's "generosity". This practice has been questioned by many people as to whether or not it is ethical. Based off of the principle of charity, offering incentives could contradict the moral obligations that people have to be charitable on their own accord. Therefore, it is unethical to offer appealing incentives in order to convince people to donate to charity, as it disregards people's present social and economic status.
The offering of incentives essentially contradicts the value of charity. Charity is a billionaire donating ten percent of his profits to assist the victims of Hurricane Isaac. Charity is someone taking time out of their day to help people with NO reward. Charity is not a sixteen year old kid who failed a test, so they bring in some canned food to earn bonus points. That teenager may be donating something or assisting someone, but if they were given a reward, it was not charity. This could be deemed as gray on the ethics scale, if it were not such a common act. My father, Franklin Stitely, is a CPA at his own firm. He sees this all of the time. A small business owner behind on his taxes, decides that they want to donate some of their income to a charity. Franklin instigates the proceedings, and within ten minutes, the brutal question is asked. "How much money will be deducted from my taxes for this?" If these people do not wish to truly be charitable, then why try to make them? If they are not willing to be charitable on their own accord, it is not ethical to reward them for taking a break from being selfish for only five minutes. These incentives are a kink in the charity system, as under the surface, it causes more problems than it could ever fix.
Who is eligible to even donate to charities? Everybody? That is not true. By offering incentives, this country is unwittingly presenting an unfair advantage to people with more money. If two kids failed a test, and their only opportunity to pass was to bring in ten canned food items, one may not be able to. If there is one kid who is rich that can afford it, and the other can not, it is unfair for the rich child to receive the extra credit. He could afford it. How can the poor kid receive the same rewards? He can not, he does not have the money to be "charitable". So, not only does the poor child still fail the test, his family gets no tax deductions, when they are the ones who may actually need them. Fortunately, my family has money, we could donate to charity if we chose to, but our neighbors across the street do not. That does not make them inferior, but the fact that they have to watch others receive awards for doing something they have no ability to do implies that they are.
The act of being charitable is a sticky situation. Many actions are personified as charitable, even if the motivation is purely selfish. This is an action becoming more and more common as now incentives are being offered as a way to draw people into the act of "charity". However, this violates many ethical codes. It completely undermines the act of charity, as these people are motivated by freed. It also creates an inferiority complex between the poor and the rich. Those who may have more money are now given unfair advantages, such as more points on a quiz, essentially because they have the ability to do something others can not, This is unethical and violates moral integrity of those who are genuinely charitable. Charity is not a complicated idea. A person wants to give back or they do not. It is time to stop offering incentives to convince those that charity is cool. It is time to work on the future by people's own accords, not by their greed.
The offering of incentives essentially contradicts the value of charity. Charity is a billionaire donating ten percent of his profits to assist the victims of Hurricane Isaac. Charity is someone taking time out of their day to help people with NO reward. Charity is not a sixteen year old kid who failed a test, so they bring in some canned food to earn bonus points. That teenager may be donating something or assisting someone, but if they were given a reward, it was not charity. This could be deemed as gray on the ethics scale, if it were not such a common act. My father, Franklin Stitely, is a CPA at his own firm. He sees this all of the time. A small business owner behind on his taxes, decides that they want to donate some of their income to a charity. Franklin instigates the proceedings, and within ten minutes, the brutal question is asked. "How much money will be deducted from my taxes for this?" If these people do not wish to truly be charitable, then why try to make them? If they are not willing to be charitable on their own accord, it is not ethical to reward them for taking a break from being selfish for only five minutes. These incentives are a kink in the charity system, as under the surface, it causes more problems than it could ever fix.
Who is eligible to even donate to charities? Everybody? That is not true. By offering incentives, this country is unwittingly presenting an unfair advantage to people with more money. If two kids failed a test, and their only opportunity to pass was to bring in ten canned food items, one may not be able to. If there is one kid who is rich that can afford it, and the other can not, it is unfair for the rich child to receive the extra credit. He could afford it. How can the poor kid receive the same rewards? He can not, he does not have the money to be "charitable". So, not only does the poor child still fail the test, his family gets no tax deductions, when they are the ones who may actually need them. Fortunately, my family has money, we could donate to charity if we chose to, but our neighbors across the street do not. That does not make them inferior, but the fact that they have to watch others receive awards for doing something they have no ability to do implies that they are.
The act of being charitable is a sticky situation. Many actions are personified as charitable, even if the motivation is purely selfish. This is an action becoming more and more common as now incentives are being offered as a way to draw people into the act of "charity". However, this violates many ethical codes. It completely undermines the act of charity, as these people are motivated by freed. It also creates an inferiority complex between the poor and the rich. Those who may have more money are now given unfair advantages, such as more points on a quiz, essentially because they have the ability to do something others can not, This is unethical and violates moral integrity of those who are genuinely charitable. Charity is not a complicated idea. A person wants to give back or they do not. It is time to stop offering incentives to convince those that charity is cool. It is time to work on the future by people's own accords, not by their greed.