Philosophy Discussion Forums

Apparently I don't put this in the "philosophical argument standard" but essentially my question is related to businesses that claim to donate to charity, or people who make money off their story. Specifically, businesses or people who are not honest, and using charity as a sort of advertisement and not so much the aspect of charity.

When this has been brought up I am always met with "well at least they are doing something to help regardless of their intentions" but the thing is this has really evolved into a tricky situation. Before I give an example I'd like to point out that it is simply an example and is not a claimed belief or anything. If you are easily offended or take things further than intended, i'd disregard this post I guess.

I have two examples of this, one of which I have witnessed exists today.

1. Because of all the acceptance hype, a young man decides to "come out" on YouTube, shocking everyone who actually knows him. He claims that he has painfully hidden his homosexuality for his entire life and decided to document his "journey" with all on YouTube. He isn't really gay, and he even jokes about it with close friends. But nobody can argue with him because if they do, who are they do say who he is or not? Who are we to judge in such a hard time for him? He actually made a good profit out of it, changed his name, and "plans" to go through with the surgery. But it is a really fast decision and blah blah blah.
2. a 10 year old has grown up with a YouTube channel, for her mother has videotaped her doing cute things since she was an unaware child. This young girl has been given an opportunity to be on T.V acting a similar role to her YouTube channels. She gives the money to her mother, who spends it. She is only 10 so making her mom happy is honestly what she wants to do However this will likely change when she is older.


These might be poor examples but to be honest I am not feeling the best so to those who are reading this, I am aware I am not explaining too properly. What I am trying to express here is a trend I have watched evolve over the years from the pink "breast cancer awareness gear" (I know those funds did go to the cause) to "Donate to my personal trials and troubles on go fund me" etc. I know that I have no place to tell people where they put their money. But I do not like the idea of people being scammed because they believe they are donating to an honest person who is not honest in the least. I don't like the idea of actresses and actors who really try hard, but are beaten to the punch because someone lied about their entire existence to coincide with the "trending struggle"

The younger generation grew up learning logic puzzles and critical thinking, so they are smart enough in terms of manipulation. Science tells us that the internet and social media makes people very neurotic, narcissistic, and self absorbed. Many people also are interested in the "get rich quick" scheme and have delusional stars in their eyes...desperate attempts for fame can be viewed across the internet where non-trending things lie.

Ugh I am all over the place! But...I do not see this changing as people age. Usually this kind of stuff dies out at 18. But grown adults are ruining their reputation with this desperation for fame stuff. Perhaps its my own location, maybe its my news. But I do see it where I live and To give a simple question that people can reply to would be:

1. If someone claims to be transgender, concerned with racism, rape, or any other very touchy subject....uses this "experience" to gain financial revenue...is it mandatory to care? Does it make a person not accepting if they do not donate, or care? Wouldn't not caring mean they are accepting...because if a person stood up and said "I am a lover of ice-cream" nobody would donate because it is common? Is it wrong to inquire if a person is lying if many people believe it to be like any other business? If a person were to sell snake oil....people would want to know. In the future, will people pick up on using morals to gain income? Or will there be another way that this would be exposed?

Morality does not accept money but money will always accept morals. In other words, people will pay to hear of humility, but never do they actually pay a humble person.

Unnecessary wrote:"breast cancer awareness gear" (I know those funds did go to the cause) to "Donate to my personal trials and troubles on go fund me" etc.

This is an interesting and true observation!

But regarding your question, I was thinking about this recently, and I think it comes down to motive. Specifically I was thinking about how some religious figures make vast amounts of money selling media. If their intentions are in the right place, then I think they deserve to benefit from their work. If however they are manipulating something to benefit themselves solely, then it is wrong.

More simply, if their priorities are on themselves, and the cause second, I think it is wrong. Vice versa, if it their priority is on the cause, and then they consequently benefit from this, it is right. I'm employing Kant's means/end reasoning to this I believe.

I think there will always be those who use exploitation for personal gain, and it isn't wrong for us to stop and try to process their motive.

As long as there are those who are easily parted from their money, there will be those who use whatever tool available to them to try to get some of that money. This is true, has always been true and always will be true. The fact that it is now reaching more people because of electronic media is a modern circumstance, but changes nothing ethically (it just changes the numbers involved).

Just because someone legitimately has a strike against them, doesn't mean that they are beyond moral reproach.

As long as there are those who are easily parted from their money, there will be those who use whatever tool available to them to try to get some of that money. This is true, has always been true and always will be true. The fact that it is now reaching more people because of electronic media is a modern circumstance, but changes nothing ethically (it just changes the numbers involved).

/thread, those who understand this are a different breed of people from those who don't - that doesn't make it any less frustrating that some obtain substantial wealth on the back of ethically dubious schemes or pleas while others work hard for nothing but there is nothing that can be done about it. To OP, there are many different people in the world and not everyone donates, not everyone is scamming and not everyone is being self-absorbed or narcissistic and so while the things you're talking about, by their very nature tend to get attention and exposure, I don't think it is cause to begin characterising groups of people negatively in response to it.

In life it's best to be skeptical and a cynic in the realistic view of the world. I always assume that people have an agenda in anything they do, it saves me from any disappointment.

Unnecessary wrote:1. If someone claims to be transgender, concerned with racism, rape, or any other very touchy subject....uses this "experience" to gain financial revenue...is it mandatory to care? Does it make a person not accepting if they do not donate, or care? Wouldn't not caring mean they are accepting...because if a person stood up and said "I am a lover of ice-cream" nobody would donate because it is common? Is it wrong to inquire if a person is lying if many people believe it to be like any other business? If a person were to sell snake oil....people would want to know. In the future, will people pick up on using morals to gain income? Or will there be another way that this would be exposed?

Morality does not accept money but money will always accept morals. In other words, people will pay to hear of humility, but never do they actually pay a humble person.

I used to work for two charity organisations and my job was basically to look for monthly donors, and as a result of that experience I think it's never mandatory to care. Be it about a cause for many or the struggles of an individual, not caring enough to give away your money does not make you a bad person because the reality is that there are just too damn many problems out there to care about and we just can not possibly help with solving every single one of them. Besides all the issues and injustice other people face we all also have our own struggles and we have to pick our battles. It's the same with activists, one person or one group can't possibly work to end every form of injustice at the same time because then nothing will get done with any of it. It's not selfish exclusion to niche where you actually can make a difference, regardless if that means you only focus on keeping you and your family fed, or dedicating your life to solving a problem that affects millions. We do what we can and that way we're contributing. Change the world with a small step forward.

"Is it wrong to inquire if a person is lying if many people believe it to be like any other business? If a person were to sell snake oil....people would want to know. In the future, will people pick up on using morals to gain income? Or will there be another way that this would be exposed?" made me think about how cooperations using charity are treated compared to actual charities. When a company uses charity in order to make a profit, for example "buy a pair of shoes and we'll send another pair to a child in need!" few people question it and they feel good buying those shoes, even though the only reason they bought those shoes is because they wanted shoes, and the only reason the other pair was sent off in the first place was because the company could make a profit doing it. The company and customer benefitted far more than the reciever or the "charitable" act. On the other hand, if an organisations whoms sole purpose for existance is to provide charity makes any sort of benefit for themselves it's very often questioned harshly. For example, paying employees or making comercials. "Why don't they just volonteer if they care so much?", "Why don't they just use this money to help the people in need?". The funny thing is that both those things are also done to help those in need; to run a large organisation properly you need people working full-time and the vast majority of people can not work full-time for free without starving and sleeping on the streets. Likewise the comercials are made in order to draw in more money and thus help for the people the organisation wishes to aid. The company who has an entirely selfish purpose is presumed good, while the less selfish charity is far more questioned and critisized.

Basically, ofcourse we can inquire if someone is lying (the honest person would have no reason to worry in the first place) but it is interesting how some are far less questioned about that and it's important to look at who we decide to inquire.