You're rich, now what?

In another thread the subject of rich people donating came up. I believe that people have the right to do what they like with their money. I give both my time and cash when I can. I'm also a mean spirited bastard when the mood takes me just to even up my Karma.

Do you think that the wealthy have a moral obligation to be philanthropic?

Discuss:

Not a moral obligation, luckily for them it's a tax shelter. Personally if I had the money I would give even if it weren't a tax shelter.

Do they have a MORAL obligation. No. Do I feel that they should. Yes. Not just every time a large natural disaster hits for PR.

Balance is everything. If you take, it's good to give back.
I believe it's more of a spiritual obligation than a moral one.

That's another aspect where 'You're damned if you do..' because if they give to a disaster fund it looks like moral showboating and if they don't it looks like they're an unfeeling tightwad depending on how the media want them perceived that week.

Give quietly, regularly and it will sort its self out.

do the wealthy have a moral obligation to be philanthropic? sure...just as the rest of us do. whether it's spare change in the collection basket each Sunday, or a $100,000 check to Jerry's Kids, or volunteering to coach a youth league, i believe we all have a moral obligation to provide what we can to those who need it.

some can provide more (time and/or money) than others...but i feel that we are still obliged to provide what we can, when we can do so.

No obligation whatsoever. They call it "generosity" for a reason.

If I were filthy rich, and I decided to give $1 million to the Tsunami relief efforts, and I heard someone say that they thought I was obligated to do that, I'd be real pissed.

When people are giving of their time or financial resources, they deserve to be thanked and appreciated.

Exactly. I haven't read what people said in my response to the "Unique Whips" thread, but I basically agree with what most of everyone has said. There is no TRUE obligation, but it is a good thing to donate what people can, when they can.

Is a philanthropist a better person than a non-philanthropist?
Is it our obligation to be the best people we can be?

i consider a moral obligation as something that my morals would lead me to believe I would do...do I personally think that charity is a moral obligation? Yes I do. Doesn't mean the next Joe, Schneed or Malcolm does...and that's cool. that is certainly your preogative. that is a problem with humans in general. most cannot disassociate themselves to form a valid opinion, and realize that your opinion may not be right or wrong. there is always room for gray area...you certainly do not always have to be right.

my morality leads me to believe that giving of yourself for charitable reasons is obligatory. for if you do not give, who will?

Is a philanthropist a better person than a non-philanthropist?
absolutely not.