What does the word philanthropist mean? Who is a philanthropist and what does he do? What are the main characteristics of a philanthropist?

Remember how in MARVEL's first "Avengers" Tony Stark responded to Captain America's attack:

- Who are you without a suit?
- Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist!

What is a philanthropist? Many people do not know the true meaning of this word. Let's figure it out.

Word "philanthropist" appeared in Greece many hundreds of years BC. Literal translation - love for a person. Nowadays, this is what people who do charity work are called. It is worth noting that in ancient times almsgiving (alms given in temples) was considered synonymous with this type of activity.

Philanthropy - caring for, improving the lives of humanity

Rich people who donate huge sums to help the poor are generally considered philanthropists. But a citizen who donates a few rubles to a beggar on the street is also a philanthropist.

There are many famous people in history who not only donate several million annually to charity, but also become volunteers in medical centers, refugee camps, and orphanages. Oh.

The most outstanding example can be attributed to the actress Cesaria Evore. This woman has been supporting education in her small country of Cape Verde for many years. She often visits hospitals, buying equipment and medications. Many hundreds of Cape Verdeans, thanks to Evora, learned to read and receive medical care.

Konstantin Khabensky And Keanu Reeves- two different actors, but the fate of the men is very similar. Celebrity wives have died from cancer. Therefore, actors donate most of their fees to the study and fight against this terrible disease. Actors, in their performances, often appeal to people with a request not to leave the sick in trouble, because many can still be helped.

George Michael — during his lifetime he did not show off his donations; the singer’s good deeds became known from the memories of his loved ones and people whom he was able to help. One of the most memorable actions was paying a bill for a woman for an IVF procedure, a few months later her dream came true and she became a mother for the first time. A man could simply feed a beggar lunch or pay the bill for a mother with many children.

There are even politicians among them

Jose Mujica— The Uruguayan president has become for many an example of sacrifice and decency. El Pape (as the residents called their favorite) spent almost all his income on charity. The main focus was medicine. He not only donated large sums, but was also personally present during examinations and examinations, helping the seriously ill with his support.
Manny Pacquiao - Filipino boxer, grew up in poverty. Having become a public figure, he began to build houses for his fellow villagers. The village, called Pacman Village (Pac Man's name is Manny's nickname in the ring), is named after its builder. The village has several hundred new houses.
Angelina Jolie - the actress is the most ardent philanthropist. In 2001, when the next film was being filmed, the actress visited Cambodia. She was very shocked by the poverty of the country. Being influenced by what she saw, the girl began to travel around the countries of the 3rd world. This was followed by the adoption of a boy from Cambodia. Angelina has created several charitable foundations and adopted children. Currently she is a goodwill ambassador helping the poor.
Chulpan Khamatova - actress, together with Dina Korzun , organized the “Give Life” charity foundation. She treats her brainchild with zeal. The foundation helps children with cancer in their difficult struggle for life. The woman devoted many of her projects to attracting attention to the activities of the organization. For example, performing at Ice Age. Thanks to her, the mortality rate has dropped sharply.

Billionaires

Couple Gates- are considered the most generous rich people on Earth. Bill and Melinda have donated $28 billion over their years of philanthropy. One of the richest people spends large sums on improving medicine and fighting hunger in countries of the 3rd world. Funds are also allocated for the education of poor children all over the planet. The founder of Microsoft created a fund to support the world's population.

Warren Buffett - one of the richest entrepreneurs on the planet, contributed $37 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The businessman did not particularly advertise his action. The public learned about Warren's charitable activities from his friends. It contributes about $2 billion to the fund annually.

Charles Feeney— he came up with a chain of stores around the world called Duty Free. Having earned millions of dollars from duty-free trading, this noble Irishman, completely anonymously, donated huge sums to good causes. He opened free schools, research centers, hospitals and hospices. He himself never boasted about his wealth. He wore a cheap $10 watch and did not have a personal car.

There are a lot of inhabitants on our planet who can call themselves good people. Some send billions, others can allocate only a couple of hundred rubles. But they all do one great and good deed.

Many of us have heard the words “philanthropist” and “misanthrope,” but not everyone knows their meaning. These two types of people stand on opposite sides of the psychological barricade: to put it simply, a philanthropist is a person who loves people, and a misanthrope is a person who hates them.

If we talk about what philanthropists do, then all their activities are aimed at the benefit of humanity. Sincere and selfless love for people results in voluntary donations. And here it is very important to be able to distinguish between true philanthropists and imaginary ones - those who only want to appear as such.

The activities of philanthropists can be divided into several types:

financial or any other material assistance to those in need (monetary donations to sick children or orphans, disabled people, elderly people, etc.; providing them with food, things, medicines);
assistance in the construction of buildings in underdeveloped countries (for example, schools, orphanages or medical facilities);
participation in charity events aimed at drawing attention to the problems of those in need;
social assistance for people with disabilities (cleaning premises, shopping and pharmacy trips);
donation for the construction of temples, shelters or hospitals for the poor;
donation to eliminate the consequences of major accidents or natural disasters and help those affected, etc.

If we summarize all these types of activities, we can conclude that a philanthropist is a person who is engaged in charity.

Philanthropy can be divided into other types, depending on how many people are simultaneously involved in helping people in need:

private philanthropy (when one person makes donations of his own free will, independently of others);
fundraising (the action of volunteer organizations aimed at collecting donations for specific targeted assistance - for example, for an operation for a seriously ill patient);
activities of charitable foundations that distribute donated funds for various needs of society.

In any case, the activities of philanthropists are based on their love of humanity and the desire to provide all possible assistance to people who need it.

Let's return to the question of who is a misanthrope and philanthropist. Oddly enough, it is easier to identify real philanthropists than misanthropes. A true philanthropist does not advertise his charitable activities and does not expect rewards or praise for them. But the main thing is that he does not expect benefits from his actions.

Beneath the mask of philanthropists are often people who crave fame, money or influence. Take a closer look at the actions of politicians on the eve of the elections - and you will learn what false philanthropy is. In other words, if you still don't understand what a philanthropist means, you just need to take a closer look at the people who donate in church or distribute food to the needy on the streets. You will never know their names, nor will you know how much time and money they spend on free assistance.

A true misanthrope is much more difficult to identify. These are people who do not openly show their hostility towards others. Most often, on the contrary, they carefully hide it. Misanthropes do not hate any particular people. We can say that these are idealists who hate all of humanity as a whole for some individual qualities that are unpleasant to them personally - weakness of character, consumerist attitude to life, annoying mistakes.

Thus, one can contrast the philanthropist with the misanthrope. These are people who have the exact opposite attitude towards humanity. But, despite the fact that it is customary to condemn misanthropes and approve of the activities of philanthropists, the behavior of both is often considered extreme.

This can easily be explained by the illogical and feigned attitude of most people towards the laws of mercy established in our society. You can condemn misanthropes for their contempt for others, although they do nothing wrong. You can praise philanthropists, but at the same time you yourself regret giving alms to the poor.

If you remember that man is a social being, you will realize that without philanthropists our society would not survive. Think about what a philanthropist means - a person who loves other people. Never. Simply because he is human.

Who is a philanthropist and what does he do?

In a broader sense, philanthropy refers to any charitable activity. It does not have to be material in nature. By improving the quality of life of those in need, philanthropists improve the quality of life of society as a whole. And if you're still hesitant about philanthropy today, think back to World War II and consider how many people might actually have died if our society had not embraced the principle of mutual aid.

A philanthropist can do whatever he wants - independently donate funds to charitable organizations or create foundations that provide various assistance. In any case, it pursues a good goal - the fight against serious types of diseases, support for orphans or people affected by the consequences of the disaster.

Philanthropist and philanthropist are essentially synonymous. Their only difference is that philanthropists are a kind of subspecies of philanthropists. Patrons tend to provide charitable assistance in support of art in all its forms or science.

To summarize, we can say that a philanthropist is a person who loves people. He does not show contempt for mistakes, weakness or infirmity; he is always ready to provide help and support. This is a person who does not judge and does not expect reward. If you once provided all possible help to those in need, then you are not inclined to be philanthropic and merciful. It lies at the core of human nature. It is a mistake to think that philanthropists are weak-willed individuals. Walking past someone in need, turning away contemptuously, is the easiest thing to do. Only those who bear the great burden of love for other people can lend a helping hand.

SOCIAL SCIENCES AND MODERNITY 1998 No. 5R.G. APRESSYAN

Philanthropy: alms or social engineering?*

In Russian public opinion, charity is usually understood as an improved and streamlined distribution of material goods (primarily money and equipment, as well as food and clothing). It takes effort to see charity in the free provision of services, the transfer of knowledge and skills. The philanthropist’s attitude that charity can be a means of influencing social practice is perceived with deep suspicion and can be met with hostility by public opinion. This raises a significant question about what philanthropy is and what philanthropic organizations should be.

What is philanthropy?

Philanthropy(charity) is an activity through which private resources are voluntarily distributed by their owners in order to help people in need (in the broad sense of the word1) to solve public problems, as well as improve the conditions of public life. Private resources can be financial and material resources, abilities and energy of people. Charity is often understood as giving alms. There is much in common in the motives and value bases of charity and almsgiving. But as a certain kind of social practice, charity differs from alms. Alms represents an individual and private action; Basically, it is given simply to those in need, even without an explicit request on their part. It is aimed at easing severe and urgent need. Charity but it is organized and predominantly impersonal in nature. Even in cases of ensuring the implementation of individual undertakings (projects), socially significant goals are meant. It is carried out according to plan, according to specially developed programs. Contributions to universities, museums, hospitals, churches, environmental projects, as well as to foundations that undertake the rational distribution of collected funds - all this is philanthropy, regardless of whether the help is directed specifically to the poor or those who need help.

Almsgiving is help with essential needs. Philanthropy also manifests itself in situations of emergency assistance (starving people, those in distress, etc.). Large-scale national and international *The article was prepared as part of a research project under a grant from the Research Support Program (Research Support Scheme) Open Society Institute of the George Soros Foundation. 1 In this case, the needy means not only those living in need, but also those who lack additional funds to realize their personal and professional interests. A p e with me n Ruben Grantovich - Doctor of Philosophy, Head of the Ethics Laboratory Institute of Philosophy RAS. philanthropic events to provide humanitarian aid individual settlements or entire regions, and even peoples in dire need due to a natural disaster, military conflict or economic catastrophe, are being undertaken constantly, especially in recent decades. However, experience shows that this type of assistance is most effectively provided by government organizations or with the support of government services (meaning the need for emergency mobilization of resources, attraction of expensive vehicles, etc.). Moreover, any emergency or systematic assistance to those in dire need, apparently, should be the subject of government or by state organized and subsidized care, since philanthropy is voluntary. Emergency assistance or systematic acute care those in need must be indispensable, in other words, not dependent on anyone’s good will. Philanthropy, helping in essential necessary, may also support people and organizations simply in desired. In this regard, philanthropy represents an additional factor in the autonomy and freedom of people - individual and organized in communities.

In recent decades (since the 60s), a stable idea of philanthropy has developed not only as monetary and property donations, but also as gratuitous, i.e. “social” activity in the proper sense of the word2. Such activity is also called “voluntary,” although the foreign word “volunteer,” adopted in Russian to designate a different kind of thing, may be more appropriate here.

Philanthropy, as has been said, aimed at the common good. The precise qualification of this concept is important not only from a sociological, but also from a legal point of view in societies where charity and charitable contributions are exempt from taxes. According to D. Burlingham’s definition, it should include activities: a) the goals of which go beyond the interests of family and immediate friends; b) which is not undertaken for the purpose of making a profit; c) by administrative order. Obviously this is an unpaid activity. This also includes the activities of self-help groups and various kinds of civil initiatives within the framework of professional and cultural development, environmental and cultural conservation actions and campaigns.

Philanthropic is also an activity in which, in addition to public interests, personal interests are realized, in particular, those that are undertaken solely out of personal interests, but through which socially significant results are achieved. “Pride and vanity have built more hospitals than all the virtues put together” - this noteworthy, not without sarcasm, remark made by B. Mandeville precisely indicates the possibility of such a paradoxical combination of private and general interests, which may confuse the moral sense, but should be no less the subject of reasonable attention of a legislator interested in stimulating philanthropy.

An indifferent point for the legislator, but significant in terms of social stratification and social mobility, is that philanthropy (in countries with long traditions) is a sign of social status. We are not talking about archaic stereotypes that reflected the practice of charity and help (in medieval society), when the rich provided benefits to the poor, but in a socially defined situation of relations between elder and younger, when the very fact of the benefit designated (and in later times established). Voluntary work in charity campaigns can be very different in their functions: organizers are always required (sponsors), barkers (boosters), money makers (“fundraisers”), mentors (coaches), presenters (leaders) etc. . The word "voluntary" is often used to mean "voluntary", i.e. independent (for example, someone voluntarily, those. himself, pays a fine for overdue utility bills, although about Kant’s goodwill There are no people involved in the situation to talk about here. Nowadays, elements of that practice, filmed, are preserved within the framework of philanthropy traditional elites(of course, in countries with stable traditions of philanthropy).

Given what has been said about philanthropy, how reasonable is it to assume that activities in which material and personal resources are donated can be carried out in an unfocused manner, without serious and responsible planning designed to ensure its maximum effectiveness? The answer is so obvious that the question itself can be considered rhetorical. Philanthropic efforts can also be ineffective. But, at least ideally, philanthropy is always a purposeful, programmatically organized, systematic activity focused on positive practical results. It is also obvious that not only the executive work of the organization is subject to planning. Based on its statutory tasks, it makes decisions, forms programs, develops or initiates projects. Through defining targets and priorities, programming and design, a philanthropic organization, to the extent that its activities have a public resonance and social effect, implements certain policies and asserts its ideology or philosophy. A turn in public opinion is needed to realize the obviousness that organized philanthropy is not increased almsgiving. This is one of the mechanisms that ensures the stability of a developed civil society.

Charitable foundations and state social policy

No matter how “philanthropic” philanthropists may be, society is interested in certain restrictions on their activities that would guarantee its independence from private benefactors. These restrictions are already presupposed by the qualification itself. philanthropic foundation defining its legal status as a non-state, non-profit, self-governing organization through trustees or directors, which has gratuitously provided capital distributed in the form of grants (subsidies/scholarships) or prizes designed to promote social, educational, charitable, religious and other activities aimed at the general good 4.

This qualification sets restrictions both on commercial activities, which obviously does not cause controversy, and on political activities. To the definition of a philanthropic foundation, we can add that this organization is not only non-profit and non-governmental, but also does not set itself direct political goals: philanthropic organizations should not be either propaganda machines or stimulants of negative attitudes towards the public status quo activities, be it direct actions of citizens and civil organizations or lobbying the legislature for new laws, not to mention the support of political parties and movements.

But these restrictions should be not only prohibitive, but also stimulating. Private foundations, if they do exist (and exist as private foundations), can play a special role in society. Of course, it is unrealistic to expect that with their help all social problems that the state cannot get around to will be solved. But we should certainly expect that foundations will be able to fully and effectively realize the special position they have in society. Foundations do not have miracle recipes. In this article, it is sufficient to characterize the foundation as a non-governmental and non-profit organization and we do not attach importance to those features in the activities of foundations (and its legal regulation) that are determined by the difference between private and public foundations. According to the criteria adopted in the USA, private is a foundation founded by one individual (donor), family or company; if the fund’s capital is created by several donors (donators), then this is public Charitable organization (public charily), for example, various types of local funds (community foundations) of a public institution the ability to be independent of market mechanisms or voter pressure, thanks to which, when solving complex social problems, they can build long-term strategies and accumulate significant intellectual and professional resources for their competent and non-opportunistic practical implementation.

Philanthropic organizations are non-governmental organizations. The latter characterizes not only their legal status: they are open to society in many respects. Their activity may not be completely public. Another thing is that it is necessary to discuss what in the activities of philanthropic foundations or individual philanthropists is subject to public and state control and what could be rational criteria for assessment, as well as self-assessment of philanthropic activities.

Foundations have and manage enormous financial resources, sometimes comparable to some items of the state budget. Obviously, this circumstance is ambiguous: the scale and possible social consequences raise a justified question about the relationship between foundations as an institution of civil society and the state. This question concerns not even control, but power: who, given such a significant scale of activity of foundations in certain areas of public life, has priority and, therefore, power - non-state foundations or the state. At the same time, the question arises about the accountability of non-state funds to society. This issue is relevant not only in poor societies in which rich foreign foundations operate (directly or through branches), sometimes capable of competing with the state in the implementation of certain areas of social, scientific, educational or cultural policy.

J.S. paid special attention to the problem of the relationship between government (state) social assistance and private charity. Mill at a time when private philanthropy had not received full-scale institutional development at the level of society as a whole. There are significant differences between government assistance and private charity. The main thing is that government assistance is of a state nature, focused on the interests of the state, sometimes precisely opportunistic, and the interests of specific people are often not really taken into account. This is the undoubted advantage of government assistance: it may be impersonal (and therefore perceived as soulless), but it is mandatory. It must be indispensable, so provision for the poor, Mill insisted, should depend on the law, and not on private charity. About old charity, i.e. The charity that Mill observed, he said, had no possibility of being planned and systematic: in one place there is a lot, in another there is little. But the same can be said about modern charity: it does not pretend to be comprehensive, although at times it is capable of it. Mill made special demands on the state regarding the indispensability of helping the poor. His argument was compelling in its own way: “Since the state must of necessity support the poor criminal while he serves his sentence, not to do the same for the poor man who has not committed any crime is to reward crimes.” So the government should help the poor. Another thing is that this, like any other, assistance must be rational. Mill has an important formulation that could be called "pragmatic rule" charity: “If assistance is provided in such a way that the position of the person receiving it turns out to be no worse than the position of the person who did without it, and if we can add to this: it is difficult for it to claim comprehensiveness in the conditions of huge states. Thus, with all the efforts of modern private funds in Russia to reach the most remote corners, the recipients of individual competitive subsidies are mainly residents of the centers (primarily Moscow, then St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Novosibirsk), but they could count on this help in advance, then it is harmful, but if, being accessible to everyone, This help encourages a person to do without it if possible, then in most cases it is useful." In fact, for Mill this was the main regulatory limitation of philanthropy. And what is in addition to helping the poor, what is not essential, but only desirable, can be ceded to private charity: unlike state assistance, it can afford to make a distinction between individual cases of real poverty in order to help some and not others : help coming from private charity is selective, the only important thing here is that the distributors of help do not take on the functions of inquisitors and are guided by rational motives, and not by whim.

No matter how insightful Mill was in formulating the “pragmatic rule” of aid, he did not see any significant practical difference between government aid and private philanthropy. There is no need to pay attention to the fact that the argument “from criminals” is not convincing, but only witty and, of course, moralistic: the state pays attention to criminals and surrounds them with the attention of penitentiary institutions not proactively, but forcedly, in response to the illegal actions they have committed. The poor and needy do not provoke the attention of the state in this way, and they are not as dangerous as criminals. The essence of the matter is different. As various experiences show, it is in the field of state assistance, regardless of the nature of the state system, that the largest abuses take place, and than the “state” state, i.e. The less it is controlled by society, the greater the scale of abuse. Abuses also occur in the activities of private charitable foundations; however, usually stricter control on the part of foundation boards of trustees, as well as state fiscal services, effectively blocks such violations. TO , Moreover, private philanthropic foundations do not depend on the state budget.

They are more maneuverable and responsive in providing assistance, especially program assistance, and, as already mentioned, are less susceptible to market conditions. The role of private charity in Western history of the 20th century cannot be overestimated. It was the active work of philanthropic foundations that led to a decrease in radicalism in the political struggle, which was at its zenith in the 19th century. It would be a simplification to present the matter in such a way that the foundations, through financial injections, managed to appease the political activists of the popular opposition and reduce the intensity of the political struggle. From the very beginning, the foundations of N. Rockefeller, D. Carnegie, and then G. Ford sought to scientifically validate their activities. These great industrial and financial magnates made every effort to ensure that the organizational side of philanthropy was as rationalized as the economic activities they knew. In the course of the development of charitable foundations, an organizational revolution actually occurred, thanks to which a new space of social practice gradually emerged, where decision-making and evaluation of their implementation are based on the expertise of professionals, and not on those who carry out general management or implement decisions.

In another article on this topic, I already noted that in the second half of the last century, significant changes occurred in the activities of American philanthropic organizations, due to a revolution in views on philanthropy; its purpose is associated with the improvement of society: abstract for someone else "neighbor's good" is filled with a specific meaning of the good of fellow citizens, the good of society. The meaning of philanthropy is seen in the distribution not just of consumer goods, but of the means by which people themselves can achieve (purchase) consumer goods. This understanding of the public mission of philanthropy implied its restructuring as a socially significant and purposeful activity on the principles of science, technology, planning and monitoring of results. Based on the latest results of the development of specific social sciences, the organizers of philanthropy (and these were mainly large private foundations) tried to apply the principles of social engineering, involving the formulation of problems in terms of objectively fixed criteria, the identification of controllable goals, and the careful selection of means to ensure the achievement of constructive practical results.

At the same time, it was assumed that the technologization of philanthropy does not replace charity: philanthropy is fundamentally non-revolutionary, and it should not destroy the existing order for the sake of a new order - life is changed by the forces of the people themselves, and not by philanthropic activists, philanthropists only initiate these changes.

Thanks to their versatility, foundations in America in the first third of the 20th century began to perform in relation to education, science, and culture the functions that the state had traditionally performed in Europe. Moreover, in political terms, the widespread development of philanthropic foundations in America can be seen as a democratic reaction to the closedness of the state machine to society, in which the courts and parties played key roles. The establishment of foundations opened up a new path - bypassing the state - to power as the ability to influence social processes.

Most of all, discussions regarding the social significance of private philanthropy developed at the turn of the 70s. By this time, both positive and negative tendencies of socially and socio-politically oriented philanthropy were fully manifested. Beginning with Carnegie and Ford, philanthropic foundations have used their enormous power to develop health care, education, and the arts. Broad civil movements for equal political and social rights in America in the 50s and 60s led to the fact that the ideas of radical reform of society prevailed in the activities of the largest foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie), whose policy priorities began to be determined by left-liberal intellectuals. But what did this lead to? Since the 1960s, proponents of such stock policies have made well-being a mandatory human right. This, combined with expanded government social assistance programs, has led to several generations of people growing up in the United States who are accustomed to dependence and do not want social independence. The foundations strived in every possible way to expand the amount of material compensation for the poor, in this the line they pursued was not much different from the social policy of the state, which proclaimed a course towards creating a “welfare society”, which only strengthened social-class barriers. At the same time, educational programs for ethnocultural minorities carried out by these foundations, although outwardly quite progressive, actually contributed to the erosion of the traditional values of these minorities and the aggravation of their inherent socio-economic and socio-psychological (for example, related to identification) problems. At some point, foundations - these powerful institutions of civil society - found themselves in the role of political battering rams capable of shaking the American system from within.

Awareness of the harmfulness of such a fund policy forced us to take a fresh look at the role of philanthropic funds in society - from the point of view not of donors or recipients of philanthropic assistance, but of society. The most pressing question concerned whether giving and spending of funds was a matter for the donors themselves or should be subject to public control. Mac Donald drew attention to the fact that if in the annual report for 1938 the president Carnegie Corporation, WITH. Myrdal advocated for the promotion of impartial scientific research that would enable society to better understand itself, then-president of the foundation wrote in a 1968 report . Pifer, on the contrary, he expressed the hope that the fund's activities would help shake up the sterile social institutions and mechanisms inherited from the past if the fund supported those assertive new social organizations that the wealthy sections of American society would view as a source of concern and, perhaps, danger. The issue concerned the standards for making choices between public and private interests in determining priorities for the distribution of philanthropic funds. Further, the issue was discussed as to who the funds should ultimately be accountable to and to whom the funds actually are accountable. Finally, who determines the priorities of philanthropic assistance and what are the criteria for the effectiveness and usefulness of philanthropic programs.

Apparently, in these years there is another rethinking of the role of philanthropy in society. Philanthropy is also beginning to be understood as social activity, and the content of philanthropic action is considered not only monetary donations, but also donations of personal time, voluntary and unpaid professional or personal efforts aimed at the common good, the benefit of other people.

The rationality of philanthropy

Philanthropy must be intelligent, unquestionably, thrifty and never wasteful. It is no coincidence that the largest private charitable foundations in the USA7 bear the names of famous entrepreneurs and financiers - Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Soros. These are people who have managed to apply their knowledge and talent to achieve success in economic activity. But their philanthropic activities would not be as successful as their entrepreneurial activities if they simply generously shared the profits they earned, rather than distributing funds using the same principles of rationality that were justified in acquiring funds.

However, this idea is as ancient as charity itself. We find interesting remarks on this subject already in Seneca, especially in one of his last treatises, “On the Happy Life.” Discussing the sage, Seneca argued that wealth does not humiliate the sage if it is acquired honestly and if it does not humiliate anyone, including himself. Wealth in itself is not valuable to a sage, so he will happily take it give away. However, not indiscriminately, but based on certain principles, since he is always aware of both expenses and income. The provisions formulated by Seneca are quite relevant as the most general criteria for philanthropic activity; they develop and clarify Mill’s pragmatic rule. The generosity of a sage is universal: it does not matter to him who he does good to - he simply does good to people. But his generosity is prudent, he chooses the most worthy for this, keeping in mind that beneficence should be given to good people or those who can become good thanks to help. Generosity must be appropriate and expedient, “for an unsuccessful gift is one of the shameful losses.”

The sage is the one who gives, i.e. he doesn't expect to get it back. But at the same time he tries not to lose. He gives someone compassion, helps someone because he deserves to save him from ruin, unlike the other, who, obviously, no help will help; to someone offers help, and someone imposes her. The wise man, when giving gifts, does not expect reciprocity. But he treats the gift as if it were a loan or a contribution, wondering whether it will be possible to return what he received; in other words, to what extent those who are helped can use what they receive for their own benefit and thereby not squander it.

All these remarks indicate that Seneca is very pragmatic in relation to beneficence; for him, beneficence is not a ritual, not just a custom, and, of course, not entertainment. Beneficence is based on humanity and is inspired by high motives. But at the same time this is a matter; it must be approached in a businesslike, rational manner, striving to ensure that it is effective and successful. Seneca’s remarks relate primarily to individual charity; the largest US foundations make up 16% of all foundations and distribute 62% of the total amount of funds (they spoke specifically in relation to individual charity), however, they fully retain their significance in relation to organized charity, especially Moreover, in our time people give charity individually only through alms, more often and, as a rule, through intermediaries, obviously believing (sometimes not unreasonably) that intermediaries who devote themselves to charity represent an organization, a foundation, and at this level charitable activities are carried out effectively, “according to science.”

A philanthropist is a lover of humanity. He believes that man is the pinnacle of God’s mastery, the pinnacle of the evolutionary chain, prefers to notice only his positive sides, not paying attention to his shortcomings, the OSCE organization works in the same way in Donbass, noticing only what they need. This is a general definition.
More specifically, this is a person who devotes his entire life to unselfishly helping those in need, his neighbors. Moreover, by providing this help, a philanthropist most likely perfectly understands human nature and knows their true value. Therefore, when carrying out charitable activities, he acts from some of his personal motives - atonement for past sins, out of a strong sense of omnipotence, pride and vanity, which does not at all compromise the charitable idea itself.

The appearance of the term philanthropist is attributed to Aeschylus, the ancient Greek playwright who lived from 525 to 456 BC. e. He had to invent this word in order to designate his work of tragic content." Prometheus Chained "

“Look, here I am, a shackled, sad god.
Yes, I am hated by Zeus and everyone else
The gods who serve at Zeus's court.
They don't love me because
That I did not know the limits of loving mortals"

Aeschylus wrote about 80 dramas and tragedies, but only seven works have survived to our time from those distant times. True, some have survived only fragmentarily. One of the most popular and famous literary creations of Aeschylus is " Prometheus Chained"which tells about a god who gave fire to people, not caring about the prohibitions of the main deity Zeus, and who after that suffered a well-deserved punishment (see the meaning of the expression Pandora's Box). Hephaestus became the executor of the will of the main god.
"Hephaestus: - look, the rings are already ready - hey, Power - fix his hands and beat him to the rock with a hammer, not sparing your strength"

Who is a philanthropist video

Each person plays several roles in his life. In addition to the main ones (son, colleague, sister, friend), there are also secondary categories to which a person can classify himself at his own discretion. This is a collector, a donor, and a traveler. Often these roles are social and informal in nature. One of these interest groups is philanthropy. But what is a philanthropist? In this article we will talk in detail about these people and analyze what their social function is.

History of the concept of philanthropy

The literal meaning of this word is love for people. Philanthropy, as a direction of human activity and a social role, originated a very long time ago - during the period of antiquity. One of the first contemporaries to think seriously about human virtue was Aristotle. He asked many questions, including the nature of goodness, the act of giving, and motives for helping others. The Greek philosopher deeply studied selflessness at the moment of giving gifts or providing support in earthly affairs. He believed that goodness must be done with pure intentions, without expectation of praise or payment, otherwise a good action is not good. The simplest and most popular example of giving, both then and now, are alms, giving alms to the poor and making minimal donations.

Philanthropy, as a clearly formed concept, found its followers first in Eastern and then in Western Europe. The mid-12th century marked an active period in the development of charity. Virtue is mostly preached by religious figures, educating parishioners about the benefits of donations for the human soul. More and more wealthy people are declaring themselves philanthropists, providing financial support to organizations and poor people. France and Great Britain were among the first countries to create charitable foundations.

America also adopted noble initiatives. Economic growth in this state has encouraged sacrifice and the transfer of funds to outside organizations and groups of people in need. In addition, in the 19th century in the United States it became fashionable to demonstrate one’s own prestige and independence. Charity was considered a good opportunity for patrons to show themselves in the best light.

In Rus', philanthropy appeared after America. Since the adoption of Christianity, virtue began to be actively preached. The first helpers to the poor were the Russian princes Yaroslav and Vladimir Monomakh, calling on the people to help their neighbors in whatever way they can.

Who is a philanthropist

First of all, it is a social position through which a person characterizes himself and expresses himself in society. A philanthropist is a philanthropist who is ready to provide moral and material support to everyone who needs it. Most of us help our loved ones. But the distinctive feature of a philanthropist is the implementation of good intentions to strangers. Such kind people are willing to spend their time and
money, making life easier for others.

Those who love people do not wait to be asked for help. On the contrary, they themselves seek and find the poor and disadvantaged. Sometimes a philanthropist finds out about people in need by chance, by chance. He simply cannot stand aside when certain people have nothing to eat or nowhere to live. A philanthropist creates charitable foundations or is an active participant in them. Being among the leaders of charitable organizations, philanthropists can attract new people to help those in need, convincing them of the importance of doing good deeds.

The philanthropist generally believes that man, as an individual, is the highest link in evolution, having absorbed all the best qualities. A lover of humanity deliberately does not pay attention to the shortcomings and base thoughts of people. He is busy trying to find something good and bright in everyone, in order to once again be convinced of the impeccability of two-legged creatures. A striking example of a humane attitude towards all people is Mother Teresa.

Philanthropy is initially a rather broad concept that includes love for all humanity and for each person in particular. In a narrower sense, it is any form of help and assistance to others. But often in modern society, philanthropy means charity and patronage of the arts, the formation of funds for good deeds and the organization of specialized events, the proceeds from which are transferred to orphanages or used for the construction of hospitals. This is only a small part of the options for using material goods.

What is the difference between a philanthropist and a misanthrope?

There is an antipode to a philanthropist - a misanthrope. Such a person can be described as a hater towards people. He is the complete opposite of a philanthropist and has no desire to help others. The misanthrope tries to avoid human society and any forms of interaction with others. In his conversations, he emphasizes the worthlessness of people and looks out for their shortcomings in order to convince others of his opinion.

Despite his categorical position, the misanthrope does not wish harm to anyone. He is simply disappointed in the essence of human nature and does not want to put up with human weaknesses. Unlike a philanthropist, a misanthrope believes that a person, with his rash actions, idleness and negligence, will sooner or later destroy all the good that exists on earth.

It is believed that philanthropy or misanthropy becomes a person’s life position in the process of his formation. Love or hate are not innate qualities. They are acquired over the course of life, when a person sees good and evil, good and bad people, and also draws his own conclusions. Only then does he classify himself into one of the categories.

When and why do you become a philanthropist?

Initially, philanthropy meant the implementation of good deeds based on purity of intentions and bright thoughts. But with the development of the economy and society in most countries, charity has become a way to create an impeccable reputation. After all, everyone loves kind people. In addition, demonstrating personal worth is of great importance for patrons. Both factors gained from donations and sponsorships can be a great opportunity to further develop the business and increase profits even further.

Today, everyone can find information about the latest charity events involving celebrities. In addition to social events, charity concerts and other events are often held. Public figures personally visit children in hospitals and even go to hot spots with humanitarian aid to victims of military operations. Many of these events are covered in the media.

Summarizing all of the above, we can talk about the following reasons for doing good deeds: the formation of a positive reputation, self-presentation and the possibility of future profitable projects, helping those in need. Yes, unfortunately, charity itself is at the bottom of the list. This is the real state of affairs in the modern world. Despite the self-interest and secondary benefits, all these people are also called philanthropists, because in fact they spend their money to support others.

The distortion of the concepts of good and evil has led to the fact that at present, doers of good deeds are considered freaks - persons with strange behavior and actions who not only do not hide, but, on the contrary, openly demonstrate their characteristics. The public considers it unreasonable to spend personal funds on strangers who have nothing to do with them. It is better to take care of yourself and your loved ones by spending money on your own needs.

However, there are still true lovers of humanity, driven by inner urges and ideas of assistance. These can be completely ordinary people who are not rich. On the contrary, they may have very modest incomes and give almost all of it to those in need. Philanthropists explain their not entirely reasonable behavior by the need to help. By giving personal funds and helping the poor, they experience moral satisfaction. After the act of giving, a person who loves humanity becomes calm and joyful in his soul.

On the path to accomplishing good deeds, a philanthropist is driven by the following motives:

desire to level out social inequality;
the need to serve people, the desire to be useful;
internal urge to help;
compassion for the poor and wretched;
religious influences;
a humane attitude towards man as a creation of the Creator;
the desire to perpetuate your name in history.

Philanthropy can manifest itself in different ways. There are active people who love humanity, obsessed with the idea of helping and giving all their money to charity. But there are also more “calm” philanthropists who provide material and moral support depending on their capabilities. Typically, such people do not promote charity; they help others without publicity.

A child philanthropist - what is he like?

Most parents watch their children with interest, wanting to discover any inclinations of their children at an early age. Are there any signs of philanthropy in them? Yes, there are a number of identifying behaviors that often indicate a child's kindness and compassion for those in need:

Love to the animals. If a baby plays happily with his smaller brothers, treats them kindly, strokes them and talks to animals, then he is kind-hearted. And if a baby every now and then brings a homeless puppy or kitten into the apartment with a request to feed it and leave it, then this is a direct indication of the formation of philanthropy.
Careful care of plants. Timely watering and fertilizing the soil indicate a responsible attitude towards helpless living beings. If a child does not pick wildflowers, thinking that they will be hurt, then he is capable of deeply feeling the pain of another.
The desire to share with others. Easily parting with what rightfully belongs to a child in order to please another can be considered a sign of a lover of humanity.
Craving for fairy tales. This refers to individual stories, for example, “Turnip” or “Teremok”, where there are elements of mutual assistance and generosity.
Thematic conversations. The baby can start conversations or ask about good and evil, justice, poverty, etc. Interest in these topics shows the makings of a philanthropist.
Smiling. A kind facial expression is usually present in those children who are open to the world and ready to share their good mood. Having matured, these people are able to instill faith in the best in those around them.
Reaction to injustice. By observing a child in a situation where others have been unfairly treated poorly, one can identify a person who loves humanity. If a child stands up for the offended, then later, perhaps, he will become a philanthropist.

If you have discovered one or more signs in your children, this does not mean at all that, as an adult, he will begin to engage in charity work or take off his last shirt. But a certain probability of such a development of events still exists.

Philanthropists in profession and family relationships

A lover of humanity manifests himself in a variety of situations. One of the most significant areas of life is professional activity, so a philanthropist can be identified among his colleagues. A colleague who loves people behaves in the following way at work:

willingly takes on additional tasks and responsibilities without demanding a salary increase;
helps out his colleagues by doing their part of the work or covering up their “sins”;
shares lunch or treats everyone to cookies, candy, etc.;
lends money to colleagues without asking about the repayment period every day;
organizes fundraisers to provide funds to those in need.

You can identify a philanthropist among your household members. This is what a lover of humanity does in the circle of his loved ones:

leaves the last piece of the pie to someone else;
during a conflict, tries to understand the situation and understand who is right and who is wrong;
easily fulfills requests: pour tea, clean the room instead of someone else, help with preparing dinner;
often gives gifts or carefully selects them;
unconditionally pays most of the family’s expenses or all needs;
always in a good mood;
not picky and loyal in relationships and reactions to the behavior of others.

And, of course, your loved one is a philanthropist if he transfers most of the family budget to charitable foundations.

Philanthropists of Russia and the world

We have studied philanthropists in some detail. Let's find out which famous personalities are involved in charity work on a large scale. World-famous philanthropists include:

Princess Diana. Hundreds of charitable foundations were created under her leadership. The Princess of Wales created hospitals for the terminally ill, whom she visited personally. She financed the treatment and support of children suffering from heart disease and leukemia. She even had a chance to attend operations as a nurse. Diana never brushed aside those in need; on the contrary, she reached out to them to help.
Michael Jackson. In 2000, he was listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the most generous and active philanthropist. He transferred funds to 39 charitable organizations. The singer's individual gestures were quite extraordinary. So, he wrote and performed a musical composition to use the money raised to help the hungry in Africa. He also proposed creating a scholarship named after Michael Jackson, which should be paid at institutions to African Americans with special talent.
Bill Gates. In total, he donated $28 billion. He began his journey as a philanthropist by allocating funds for research in the field of computer technology. He then created his own charitable foundation, investing $16 billion worth of Microsoft shares into it. Among the goals for the next 10 years are the following: centralized free vaccination against malaria and meningitis, education and training of teachers.
Shakira. She is a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador. I personally organized the “Bare Feet Foundation,” which provides comprehensive support to children in treatment, education, and social development. The singer visited Bangladesh and other third world countries to provide all possible assistance to the poor and those affected by devastating hurricanes.
Angelina Jolie. She donated $1 million to third world countries, for which she was proclaimed a UN Goodwill Ambassador. The actress regularly visited poor countries and delivered humanitarian aid to them. They did this even when they were pregnant. Despite having her own children, the woman adopted two babies from Cambodia. For Jolie's good deeds, the Prime Minister of this country ordered a temple to be named after her.

Among domestic virtues, the most generous and active are considered:

In contact with