Advertisement

Is There Space for Rational Thinking in Altruism? From Charity to Philanthropy

  • Leopold Vansina
Chapter

Abstract

Altruism is a human disposition to care for the other. It keeps the community together, but it can also be a vulnerability easily exploited for other purposes. Various social conditions contribute to the suppression of critical thinking: religious traditions and ideologies, unselfishness, ethics of convictions. The lack of critical systems thinking hinders us in being responsible and effective altruists. Rational thinking motivates us to evaluate the quality of the NGO, and the relevance and quality of its presented projects. Criteria are discussed which enable managers and project designers to sort out and appreciate the measurable from the likely immeasurable impact of an intended intervention in a social system in its wider context. These criteria allow potential donors to evaluate and decide whether or not to invest in a given project. By supporting or withholding one’s contributions, the benefactor may press the NGOs and project leaders to act more as responsible and effective altruists, while behaving oneself as a responsible citizen.

Keywords

Altruism Charity Philanthropy Project evaluation Criteria to appreciate project relevance and quality 

References

  1. Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Chua, A. 2004. World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. New York: Ancher Books.Google Scholar
  3. Elster, J. 2011. The Valmont Effect: The Warm-Glow Theory of Philanthropy. In Giving Well: The Ethics of Philanthropy, ed. P. Illingworth, T. Pogge, and L. Wenar, 67–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Illingworth, P., T. Pogge, and L. Wenar, eds. 2011b. Giving Back: Norms, Ethics, and Law in the Service of Philanthropy. In Giving Well: The Ethics of Philanthropy, ed. P Illingworth, T. Pogge, and L. Wenar, 196–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Karlan, D., and D.H. Wood. 2014. The Effect of Effectiveness: Donor Response to Aid Effectiveness in a Direct Fundraising Experiment. NBER Discussion Papers 20047, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. Google Scholar
  6. L’huilier, D., and D. Rolland. 2005. Action Research and Transitional Processes: Risk Prevention in a Hospital in Burundi. In The Transitional Approach in Action, ed. G. Amando and L. Vansina, 175–194. London: Karnac.Google Scholar
  7. MacAskill, W. 2015. Doing Good Better: A Radical New Way to Make a Difference. London: Guardian Books.Google Scholar
  8. Moyo, D. 2006. Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa. New York: Farrer, Straen and Giroux.Google Scholar
  9. Porter, M., and M. Kramer. 2011. Creating Shared Values. Harvard Business Review, January–February, 62–77.Google Scholar
  10. Roy, A. 2002. The Algebra of Infinite Justice. London: Flamingo Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  11. Schein, E.H. 2009. Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Weber, M. 1919. Politik als Berüf: Gezinnungsethik vs. Verantwortungsethik. Frankfurt am Main: Büchergilde Gütenberg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leopold Vansina
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations