Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Nick Beckstead, Mark Lee, and Tim Campbell, students at Rutgers University, are launching a chapter of Giving What We Can, an initiative that began at Oxford University in the U.K to encourage people in the developed world to pledge a fixed percentage of their incomes to charity. These guys get by on stipends and earn no more than $20,000 a year. But in most other parts of the world they would be considered both wealthy. Indeed, the rate at which each donates his income to charity puts him in an elite bracket with leading philanthropists.
Lee and Beckstead have pledged to give away all of their income over their stipends until graduation, and half their post-tax income from then until they retire.
Campbell has pledged to give away 5 percent of his income for now, and more after he receives his Ph.D. and starts his career. His wife, he says, supports the general idea.
The story recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal (here).
You can check their website here and this is the list of members who have each made a pledge to give at least 10% of their income to where they think it will do the most to eliminate poverty in the developing world. They have 64 members, from 9 countries, who together have pledged more than 22 million dollars. Most of them, as you can see, are students. None of them are majoring in business, management, finance, accounting or marketing...
They think - along the lines of utilitarianism - that they have a moral duty to do it. But according to virtue ethics, it is not a matter of duties but rather the development of good habits which will eventually lead to acquire the virtue of generosity.
Would you join Nick, Lee, Tim, and Giving What We Can? Should you? Why? These are moral questions...
I think this ties into the inequality argument below. A capitalist economy dictates a natural selection mentality where competition determines a "winner" and a "loser" so accordingly the contestant with the highest merits will become CEO and a lower education on a management level or below. In this way, for a developed country, inequality serves as a propeller for success.
ReplyDeleteWhen we apply the concept to an underdeveloped country, however, the gap is so wide that the country as a whole suffers. Because of this, the "Give What We Can" initiative and other goodwill operations work because by taking people on the lower economic population and enabling them through education and basic survival necessities such as food, water, shelter, etc, you're putting them on track to be able to compete in a job market where it's not as if they're in the ring with their hands tied behind their back- once they have the same footing as their competitor, the fight for the job becomes a fair one and in time their skills will develop to allow for advancement.
I think when it comes to donating it is a very personal matter. There are many questions involved, where to donate? what's the safest way? what's the best cause? how much? etc.
ReplyDeleteMany believe it simply doesn't help because the money doesn't go into the right hands.
I thought it was interesting how you mentioned that no economist, finance or accounting students/professionals are part of "Give what we can".
This reminded me of an article I read a while back on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/30/131705055/the-tuesday-podcast-what-your-3-000-bought-in-haiti
I think people in the business world are a little bit more realistic and realize that 10% income to a fund might not be as helpful as it sounds. I think actually going to Africa and seeing where the money goes would maximize utility. These doctors who are giving 10% of their income can go to Africa and see some of the patients and give them 10% of their medical time. That would maximize utility and is a great character trait.
But of course...IF the fund can get the means to get the money into the right hands, it IS morally right.
Not too sure if it's our moral duty.
Although it was not the first goal of this post, Gabriella's comments takes to the issue of how to interpret the behavior of college students when it comes to ethical decision making.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that college major is an important predictor of ethical behavior. Professors have conducted studies showing, for example, that business majors and economic majors are much more likely to cheat than any other major. The numbers are impressive and the data lead many scholars to think about the links between college behavior and future behavior in business and about college education and the financial scandals.
The question is, again, whether people with certain personality traits self-select themselves into business majors and careers in business or, rather, whether it is business education what persuades students that humans are all egoistic and that the only thing in life is money and profits. Harvard professors Ghoshal and Moran have argued for years that the second is indeed true.
I feel like a business major would still participate in the initiative. Yes business promotes an end result of profit but once that profit is attained I don't think they're all clinging to that money. From my perspective it's the motivation of being right, especially for people like Bill Ackman, a hedge fund investor who donates heavily to charity(reference article: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/shorting-bond-insurers-for-charity/). That is what non-business majors are lacking because they are fulfilled by doing what they love so even though they might be more likely to do something like this 10% income of someone making a billion dollars a year is obviously ultimately doing more for the world than 10% of the income of someone making 60 k.
ReplyDeleteAmrita, I am not sure that I understand your point. Do you mean to suggest that liberal arts studens should change their major to business so they can be "more helpful to society"? Although it does not make much sense to me, you may want to say that a pure utilitarian like Nick is committed to that thesis. Of course you should prove first that pursuing a business major will make a student as rich (and as generous!) as Mr. Ackman. But, in any case, if this is what you mean, it is good ethical reasoning.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I did not say that business majors would not participate in "Giving What We Can". I just reported the fact that so far no business major is part of the initiative while other majors are already donating part of their income.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though many people are very skeptical when it comes to donating. There have been many instances where charities have been corrupt or having money fall into the wrong hands. I think that many people just donate money to make themselves fell better, not because they truly want to help others in need. It is a good action, but not the right motives.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I'm addressing the fact that no matter what major a student has, business or non-business oriented,donations come to pass after a certain level of fulfillment is reached, whether it's being fulfilled by your character (doing good because you are a good person who enjoys helping others), by your utilitarian duty, by your job (i.e. Bill Ackman), or even by a combination. Therefore, you're more apt to help others because you've reached some sort of finish line where your personal goals are attained, perhaps explaining why the liberal arts students are donating in the present time while the business majors donate in the future. For example, if my happiness lies in the fact that I pursued a degree in English Lit and attained that self satisfaction, I'm resigned to a life of generally mediocre income and can therefore pledge 10% of my income to help others because I am happy in life and now want others to be happy as well. Business majors on the other hand tend to see happiness equated with money so they are more likely to work towards a higher income job and consider themselves happy after attaining that job, therefore allowing them to donate 10% later than the liberal arts student but still a weighty donation that obviously impacts the world.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, for argument's sake if we infer that business majors give to charity on average more than liberal arts majors and that someone going the liberal arts course throughout their career (i.e. didn't major in a liberal arts course only to work in the business world post-graduation) made less than someone who did go the route of business, then I would argue that if they really wanted to help, deeming utilitarianism as the best vehicle of social stability throughout the world, then wouldn't it be the best course of action for them to become business majors and earn those profits that would entitle them to donate sufficiently to charity?
The answer to your question is yes, and that is what makes utilitarianism senseless (objection #4: integrity).
ReplyDeleteRegarding your argument... well, the fact is that some students (liberal art majors) are already donating 10% of their income. Whether the business majors you refer will donate in the future and whether that will represent 10% of their income (or more) is something that may or may not happen and that we are not entitled to assume. That is what makes a pledge so important from a moral point of view.
I just checked again the Give What You Can website and - good news! - I found a Management Consultant named James Dibb-Simkin - in the list of donors.
After reading the article I believe 'Give What We Can" is a really good project. We always hear about charity and how to participate but we rarely have students talking about it to the media about THEIR donations and why they decided to do so.
ReplyDeleteWe live in an unfair unequal world and even though we know a small amount of our salary could have a huge impact for someone in a third-world country we rarely do it.
Why ? I believe it's all a matter of human nature. We want to see the results, we want to see the changes we've made and be proud of our accomplishment. I participated in a charity event and I am planning on going to Madagascar to help build schools. But I am doing it because I can see the results of my actions, which may sound selfish, but it's the truth. Giving money to charity is a tough choice, we rarely know which one to choose as there are so many of them in so many different countries. I believe that I would participate in "Give What We can" if my future salary allowed me to do so.
Moreover I agree with Gabriella, sometime we tend to think that giving 10% of a salary income to a fund might not be as helpful as it sounds, but it is definitely morally right.