Why is it more appealing to say you’re a philanthropist ( cf. Thefreedictionary – someone who makes charitable donations intended to increase human well-being) than a good man? Seeing a bio in which was stated that noun triggered me, but not in a social justice warrior way haha. Why would you describe yourself like that?
Does this designation gratify someone’s ego because it implies their wealth? Maybe. Not that I’m minimizing the importance of such an act, but when one gives from their colossal abundance a drop only for notoriety, is that moral? Because you only know who philanthropists are because they want you to know them. Otherwise they’ll be just good man known maybe by their family or close friends. Whenever a good deed is wanted to be acclaimed by other’s appreciation, the ego comes in and infects all of it. That is vicious. Some will say : Ugh, fuck off, why does it count if that person helps by donating capital? Well, judging like this I think we’re victims of a sophism. Should’t we also care about the decadence of character? Should’t we preserve it? What if all people would act this way, egotistically, but gilded in altruism?
It looks a lot like the antipode of the end justifies the means, where the end is the self-pride. Therefore, the intention is more valuable than the ostentatious grandeur of the gesture.
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. – Matthew 6:3
So let us be good people, nicer than necessary, giving more than we receive, as cringy as that sounds. To make known our humanitarianism only if it is paramount, so that it could directly guide people to follow our example. We can’t all be philanthropists, but we can all be righteous mortals.