Charity is meant to uplift the living standards of the society, promote education, save lives among other programs of good faith. However, at times money channeled to change lives is misappropriated according to Professor Singer. Those who run charity organizations do not necessarily utilize the kitty as it would be requested of them. Many people have come to discover that charities are resourceful and the masses have not realized this scenario. Funds mobilized under the guise of charities run into billions of dollars with no scrutiny over the spending of the same. Some slogans used by these fundraising organizations are dubious and only meant to woo donors. Singer points out one such charity under the banner,” make a wish foundation,” which says that though it purports to save the lives of dying kids, not even a single case has proven this to be true. However, his sentiments are not without criticism, those involved are quick to defend their course.
Michael Rosen, a leader in one the leading fundraising organizations, refutes this claim and insists that indeed charities live up to their intended purpose. Singer is also against tithing where 10% of income is channeled towards supporting places of worship. He acknowledges that a little fraction goes to helping the poor, a chunk of it is used to set up mega churches yet this was not the intended purpose, that of helping the poor. The masses who suffer in squalor would appreciate if only the basic of assistance would be accorded to them by these charities. Donating to Museums and the likes is a misplaced priority as they can generate income. Singer is however accused of double standards, himself been a beneficiary of educational philanthropy.
Philanthropy comes with terms and conditions, and people no longer offer “transformation gifts” for free. They blackmail the beneficiaries to breach naming rights of institutions in their honor all in the name of leaving a legacy. Some of these philanthropists acquire money through means that subject fellow humans to suffering (like the case of Andrew Carnegie), yet they cover it up by donating to various organizations for recognition.
However, the society is rejecting this approach and monuments and other means to immortalize these donors, are getting by rejected probably by the third or fourth generation. In South Africa, a statue of colonial master Rhodes and called on the same to happen at Oriel College, Oxford. They accuse Rhodes of having inflicted untold sufferings to Africans during the colonial era yet his statue had been erected like an idol in the campus. These to the students was an insult a reminder of social injustices perpetuated by Rhodes during his time. In response, Oriel College called on the institution to punish participants of the statue demolition. Philanthropists are outdoing each other concerning donations they give to various organizations. Those who contribute the highest to a given institution or health facility, have their names immortalized. These acts of donating for a good cause have been criticized as being a cover for tax evasion; people don’t look at the bigger picture. Some philanthropists, however, receive public approval for their source of income and their projects are transparent. Bill Gates and Michael Zuckerberg pass the test for demonstrating real philanthropy.