Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Offering incentives for charitable acts
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Offering incentives for charitable acts
The New York Times Magazine features a column by Randy Cohen called “The Ethicist” debating how individuals have pondered on what tactic should be used to create the greatest amount of participation in over the existence of charitable events. So as a result, the idea regarding incentives came into play to benefit both parties, but also raises a question on whether it is ethical to offer incentives for charitable acts. Including incentives in exchange for donations is not only ethical but also logical. It increases participation in charity drives and activities while not hindering the community. A charitable event with incentives proves to serve many cases, not only by increasing the participation but also the productivity. By not creating
an incentive, will result in a lack of awareness, thus creating a low participation and monetary rate. While participating in a canned food drive event, the purpose was to provide food and raise money for those in need. The first year we set off to accomplish the event we set no incentives, and later on we regretted that decision. The next year we wanted to do the same charitable event but with an incentive. The class who brought in the most canned foods would win a pizza party. We noticed that there was more participation and productivity throughout every class from the year before. The result in the incentive brought happiness towards the donators for winning the incentive and the people who are in need who received resources, which proves how it is ethical in including incentives for charitable events. From donators to the recipients, the benefit will be mutual. For example, one activity is to send messages to the people in service. This may not seem to be beneficial to both groups; however, it is, as the people sending the messages received incentives as the people in the service gain emotional support. Charitable events with incentives prove to have many advantages as it raises more attention to the event, and keeps both sides happy and proving not only themselves but as a charity with incentives to be ethical. Without incentives, most people are not motivated to donate in an event. They feel that they should not do it if they are not getting something back in return, which lowers the value of the event as well as its purpose. By making a charitable event have incentives will boost its efficiency and how effective it is as an event, which makes it become ethical in doing it. Some may argue that charity is supposed to be voluntary. However, when making a charity event, you want to have the most participation as possible to help those in need as fast as possible. The people in need probably don’t care that the donors are volunteers, they just want help to better their situation, which is why it is ethical to add incentives to charity events as it generates more help to the people in need. The practice of offering incentives for charitable acts forms different ranges as well as opinions. No matter the cost, the value of charity lies in helping those who are in need. Due to the way of adding incentives, seem to show advantages to a charity, it still completes the charities goal as it benefits society, which makes it ethical of offering incentives for charitable acts.
It is up to the people whether they want to be models who endeavor for more or disgraces that fail to try. In “A Model of Christian Charity” by John Winthrop and “Art of Virtue” by Benjamin Franklin, both authors acknowledge human flaws, but more importantly they also acknowledge the capability to strive for good for themselves or for
185). I was shown early on that doing for others is satisfying. Unfortunately I believe this is a dying virtue. Every year our 4-H club has a brat and hamburger fundraiser for our club at the local grocery store. I encourage the children to go and ask patrons if they can help them with their groceries. We encourage community service and have several projects yearly to encourage stronger moral acts and virtues among our members. Kyte states, “A family, a business, or a community that is concerned about ethics would be well advised to focus first on building a culture of good relationships by focusing on character” (2012, p. 211). That character building is what we need to build in our children and in ourselves.
My attention was also drawn to several questions in this podcast, which made me eager to find the answers to these questions. For example, one interesting question I heard was “when you do see generosity how do you know it’s really generous” (Levy, 2010). This question stood out to me because it is one particular question I don’t think about often and made me wonder whether people help someone out because they see it as a duty. However, I believe the best answer to this question is the portrayal of the concept of norm of reciprocity, which indicates “the expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future” (Akert, Aronson, & Wilson, 2013, p.303). This is true because “generosity” happens when both persons are nice to each other and if an individual helps another person then it’s easy to assume that the person who was
Kevin C. Robbins (2006) says modern organizations can trace their origin to the philanthropists who feel a sense of moral or spiritual obligation to a cause (p.13). It is at the basis of human relationships and civilization to care for the needs of others, and has been for centuries. Nearly every religion emphasizes in some way the spiritual and moral responsibility of individuals to contribute to others. Ancient Jews saw charitable giving as essential and imperative (Robbins 2006). It was expected that they participate in almsgiving for the poor, widows, and orphans. The Roman Empire contributed to our modern view of philanthropy, also. They had a sense of obligation to civilization to formalize and regulate philanthropy (Robbins 2006, p.17) Christianity has also greatly influenced the motives of philanthropy worldwide by encouraging the practice of self-sacrifice for the good of others in need.
Winthrop, J. (2008). A Model for Christian Charity. In N. Baym (Ed.), The Norton Anthology of American Literature Volume 1 (pp. 82). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Cullity argues the conclusion that we should always help others who are in need as long as doing so does not cause significant harm to yourself is too demanding, it seems as though mostly all sources of personal fulfilment would be morally impermissible if the demand to donate to aid agencies were to be fully carried out. If, for example, I wanted to do anything with my free time that involved what could be considered unnecessary spending then this would be considered immoral because theoretically the money you would spend on yourself could have been spent on donating to an aid agency which could use the money to save a child’s life. It is for this reason that Cullity argues in his paper that the Severe Demand can be rejected from an appropriately impart...
Singer’s argument may have swayed many people to donate their dispensable income to children in need despite the fact that it has many fundamental flaws. He argues that we should give away the majority of our earnings to charity. Since Singer wants the reader to donate such a large amount of money, the readers are given no choice but to contribute nothing whatsoever. His solution is not realistic and does not take into account the long-term financial impact this type of donation contribution system would have on a country’s economy.
It’s important to realize that many Americans believe organ donation should simply be just that, a donation to someone in need. However, with the working class making up roughly 60% of society it’s extremely unlikely that a citizen could financially support themselves during and after aiding someone in a lifesaving organ transplant. The alarming consequence, says bioethicist Sigrid Fry-Revere, is that people waiting for kidneys account for 84 percent of the waiting list. To put it another way Tabarrok explains, “In the U.S. alone 83,000 people wait on the official kidney-transplant list. But just 16,500 people received a kidney transplant in 2008, while almost 5,000 died waiting for one” (607). Those numbers are astronomical. When the current “opt-in” policy is failing to solve the organ shortage, there is no reason compensation should be frowned upon. By shifting society’s current definition regarding the morality of organ donation, society will no longer see compensation for organs as distasteful. Citizens will not have to live in fear of their friends and family dying awaiting an organ transplant procedure. A policy implementing compensation would result in the ability for individuals to approach the issue with the mindset that they are helping others and themselves. The government currently regulates a variety of programs that are meant to keep equality and fairness across the
Giving an incentive to donors is a good idea because it rewards the donor for doing a good deed. Incentives also give the donor the feeling as though their generosity is appreciated. Giving these feelings and tangible incentives to people is a great way to increase donation because it's an idea of giving back to the giver. However, money should not be the object given back because it hold such a high value in this society. This can be seen through the media and can be seen through all the ways people try to get money. Being that money has such a high value and organs are in such high demand, people would be wiling to do anything to get an organ to get the money. People might even forget about trying to help someone else out by giving an organ and instead skip straight over to the money and that's why any other incentive except money should be given.
The liberal side of me does understand that when money is involved people do tend to get a bit rigid due to obvious reasons, Its hard earned money and is ‘technically’ of utmost importance to our survival in today’s world. But the central idea is to help faraway strangers in need with no morally significant cost. We as members of the society shouldn’t forget our responsibilities and duties and should thus do what is maximally efficacious. Since there isn’t a lot that donating to someone in need takes from us, we should definitely do it.
It differentiates ethical principal amongst altruism and solidarity motivations for organ donations. The first issue being the grounds is a limited form of additional problems limited to supporters (Saunders, 2012) which may be independent or of individual groups. Awaiting for the scarcity of organs to receive the next available transplantation. Utilizing degrading behaviors, illegal activity, and misconceptions of the dead donor rule (DDR) for living patients and organ donations, gift implementation for organ donors and various terminally ill individuals in the United States. Organ donors make public altruism rather than solidarity motivation. Secondly register donor positions for transplantations are decreasing since there is illegal system capitalization in place for organ donors. Conceptual grounds play a major role as a reciprocity as a detriment for organ donating. Directed donations create real world issues in addition as it stimulates an organ shortage domino effect throughout the organ donation practices as an
For one to understand the concept and meaning of the word altruism, he or she must be able to understand the meaning and concept of egoism, morals, and ethics. Each term represents one’s desire to do what he or she believes is ethical. In this paper I will discuss and provide five scenarios describing several occasions in which I have performed a good deed to help another individual or have witnessed someone else do a good deed to help another individual.
...esult, the more directly one sees their personal efforts impact someone else, the more happiness one can gain from the experience of giving. Sometimes generosity requires pushing past a feeling of reluctance because people all instinctively want to keep good things for themselves, but once one is over this feeling, they will feel satisfaction in knowing that they have made a difference in someone else’s life. However, if one lives without generosity but is not selfish, they can still have pleasure from other virtues.
The norm of reciprocity can cause us to behave in both negative and positive ways towards our neighbours. Entirely altruistic behaviour is rare and egoistic motivations often underlie actions which cause the betterment of others lives. Just as a chimpanzee will groom another's body with the expectation of receiving the same service in return, so do we help others in the hope of being rewarded in some fashion, be it recognition, the avoidance of guilt or the long term well being of the group t...
Finally, it should be noted that today, most philanthropy is practiced in Great Britain and the United States. The principles of individual responsibility and volunteerism for the good of the people are most strongly abided by in these places. These cultural values have changed little over time for these countries, so while practices and institutions for giving have changed, the intentions are mostly the same.