Robert L. Payton

What is it about the world that calls philanthropy into being, that causes us to respond philanthropically? That question requires us to look at the world, to come to some rough conclusions about what we think we see and why we sometimes turn to philanthropy as a response to what we see. Understanding the context in which philanthropy takes place is essential to understanding philanthropy itself.

Because philanthropy is a large and complex subject, in developing an understanding of it we make a great many important assumptions about the world in which philanthropy makes sense. What follows is, first, a summary of my own worldview- of the human condition and human nature -that helps me to understand why philanthropy exists, and then an examination of “meliorism,” the philosophy I find most congenial to the philanthropic response.

The Human Condition

The philanthropic perspective sees a world in which things often go wrong and things could always be better. For human beings, the world is an uncertain, sometimes hostile place. Natural disasters like floods, earthquakes, tidal waves, typhoons, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, droughts, and plagues are part of the human condition. The floods of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers in 1993 overwhelmed the best efforts of engineers and the most advanced technologies and drove thousands of people from their homes, inundated tens of thousands of square miles of farmland, and damaged property at a financial cost of billions-with a cost in human psychic suffering beyond calculation.

Second, things could always be better. That is, humans can imagine ways in which life could be more agreeable, comfortable, congenial, pleasant, fruitful, productive, and profitable. Philanthropy is an exercise in imagining and implementing ways to relieve suffering and to improve the quality of human life. The “failure” of a natural system is an opportunity for philanthropic initiative. Some of our best and most honorable philanthropic work is done under the banner of humanitarian assistance when natural systems malfunction. When survivors of a flood have lost their property, perhaps have had their crops ruined and face starvation or bankruptcy, one possible response is philanthropic - voluntary action to alleviate the suffering of the victims. The Midwestern floods of 1993 revealed the limitations of the grand design of river control developed over the past half-century, but destructive flooding is no longer a way of life. The floods of 1993 will become part of the learning curve that will lessen the damage of the floods of 2003, if there are any.

Ralf Dahrendorf used the term “life chances” to talk about the varying social conditions in which individuals realize their potential.¹ Some people are disadvantaged or suffer in ways that seem unfair. Consider, for instance, the contrasting life chances of an eight-year-old female in Sarajevo in 1996 and her counterpart in Indianapolis. The life chances of an inner-city, African- American, ten-year-old daughter of a twenty-four-year-old drug-addicted and abusive mother are rather different from the life chances of the white children from stable and comfortable homes in suburbs like the one I live in. The life chances of the large majority of Americans are materially superior to those of the large majority of Rwandans, Bosnians, Kurds, and Basques. For some people, getting enough to eat is a problem, while for others the pressing problem is whether they can afford to pay college tuition.

Philanthropy responds to a human condition in which many humans find survival difficult, growth inadequate, and development impossible. Working toward a fairer and more just society-toward the equalization of life chances-is a philanthropic response to the human condition. Things can always be better. That is why philanthropy exists: to respond to suffering and distress and acute need and to improve the quality of life for all.

Human Nature

I will try to ring out two thoughts about human nature: the first and very important point for understanding philanthropy is that to be human means to be in some way able to respond to the needs of others, to have the ability to get beyond the self. Human nature includes a capacity to love one’s neighbor, to follow the Golden Rule, to emulate the Good Samaritan.

The second point is that human nature provides us with a capacity for both good and evil. If altruism is a humanizing capacity, it competes with dehumanizing and inhumane capacities. The understanding of human nature I find most helpful is summarized in the seven theological and cardinal virtues and in the seven deadly sins: faith, hope, charity, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice; pride, envy, wrath, sloth, avarice, gluttony, and lust. We mock such devices these days, but variations on them are still enormously popular. Note William Bennett’s The Book of Virtues and Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.²

The assumption by some people that all behavior is motivated by self-interest does not provide, for me at least, an adequate explanation for the philanthropic response. I hold that concern for others is one of the characteristics that defines human beings; altruism as well as egoism is a part of the human character. It is common to speak of persons who seem utterly indifferent to the pain or suffering of others as “inhuman.” Whether the capacity of concern for others is the result of millions of years of evolution or the result of ethical evolution across human culture-or a gift of God-is a disputed question. Most of us make a provisional choice and decide that human nature permits altruistic behavior even though much of human behavior seems guided by self-interest.