Smith (2016) argues that giving is good, giving is fraught with moral perils and giving takes work. This statement is acceptable for the fact that giving has a long-standing tradition that has continued to grow in our contemporary era. There are selfless individuals who have given up everything for a noble reason and for the benefit of others. For example, St. Mother Teresa, Bill and Melinda Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Robert Mercer, and David Koch are probably the recognized examples of selfless givers in recent times. The question is what motivates people to give and what is the value of giving? Why do people sacrifice their time and energy to philanthropic activities? The researchers have found answers to these …show more content…
In other words, individuals seem to derive happiness in providing for themselves rather than giving for the benefit to empower others. To expatiate further, we turn to the article Doing Good written by David Smith and published in “the nature of nonprofit sector” edited by Steven Otto and Lisa Dicke. Accordingly, Smith (2016) argues that giving is good, giving is fraught with moral perils, and giving takes work. Foremost, Smith underscores that giving is good since it is the collective corporate social responsibility of all. As a matter of fact, gift are transactions that interweave a social group together, and established personal relations, however, the absence of charity can instigate a major social rupture (Smith, 2016). Secondly, giving a gift has a religious implication and integrity. For instance, the story of the penurious widow that Jesus praises in the bible for her small contribution is a benchmark for this assertion. Unequivocally, Jesus commendation of the widow, labeled her contribution as the "widow's mite" since her gift had the greater value than the larger contributions of the wealthy donors. Thirdly, giving is fraught and morally perilous since meeting social needs through giving is morally risky. Nowadays givers expect appreciation and gratitude for gifts received and once the indication of appreciation and acknowledgement is not up to standard, givers …show more content…
The first observation that we are entering a paradigm shift surfaced in the New York Times and the Washington Post in 2016/2017. In these articles, Ariana Eunjung and David Gelles publicized this paradigm shift, citing the determinations of Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan in getting rid of the world’s major diseases by the end of the century. The question of the incoming paradigm Shift requires a systematic analysis. The answer is categorically clear that the technological revolution of computers and the Internet is transforming everything in our world. Furthermore, philanthropy’s economy is being transformed by the enormous new wealth in younger hands created by that technology and the globalization of the market. The fundamental reason in my opinion is the evidence garnered from the studies of this new, young, wealth-creating mega-donors. Evidence from Gelles and Chan explains that Mark and Priscilla uniformly reject the traditional rhetoric and conceptualization of “giving back” (making donations) to the “nonprofits.” The couples discovered this kind of philanthropy too negative and academic, and in its place, contemplate in constructive terms the notion of venturing into philanthropy to change the world and to make a difference. According to Gelles and Chan, the aspiration from Mark and Priscilla is not simply to improved health in the developing world, but to help