One of the grad students in my lab notified me about a benefit concert that some big name musicians will be holding in Philadelphia in July. The roster had some good performers, so I thought it would be pretty cool to attend.

This got me thinking on the actual philosophy of charity. I believe that the point of charity is to give something that will benefit others without expectation of reciprocity. Some people donate their time and skills while others donate materials or money if time and/or skill is not appropriate.

When it comes to big celebrities, they sometimes have performances in the name of a certain beneficiary. Companies will sometimes profess that a certain percentage of your purchase price will go to a particular organization or cause. Smaller organizations will resort to programs like car washes, bake sales, and other forms of solicitation.

Does anybody see a problem with the charitable measures that I mentioned above and how it conflicts with how I actually defined “charity”? I think the most obvious (and maybe egregious?) thing is that they all revolve around capitalism. Now don’t get me wrong - I’m not one of those new-age down-with-commercialism people. Heck, I’m a capitalist to the core. But this is charity we’re talking about.

Like I mentioned in the beginning, charity should be about providing for others without expectation of reciprocity. But you will notice that reciprocity is the very foundation of capitalism. I give you something (money, services, provisions) and I get something in return (provisions, services, money). So I guess the whole point of this is to point out that a lot of people really don’t want to be nice unless they get something in return. Now that’s not very righteous, is it? Not like I can talk - I love buying from bake sales. Nothing like contributing to the marching band while getting my sugar fix.

I just wish that if celebrities or companies wanted to do real good, they would just do so without going through a whole circuitous process. When a company mentions that they will donate a portion of their profits, that helps drive up sales of their products, so it’s not just the donees that benefit. Same thing goes for musicians and their public profile, though I would believe that there are plenty of celebrities who are genuinely compassionate about their cause(s).

A fellow blogger also wrote a good entry on her views on charity. Although I would agree that it’s better to actually contribute work and energy to a cause rather than throw money at a situation, I believe that cash can also be a means of giving to a cause that you might not otherwise have been able to meaningfully contribute to. For example, if you have no manual skills, or are physically disabled, it would be better for you to make a monetary contribution to Habitat for Humanity than to attempt physical labor.

What I truly have respect for are those who donate their time, money, and expertise without any expectation of compensation or even recognition. To these people, I salute you.