Pub Date : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197611418.003.0005
T. Lechterman
An especially underappreciated problem regarding philanthropic power concerns the way in which charitable gifts exercise control over future generations. Charitable bequests and trusts, which are popular instruments of donation, bind future generations to respect the wills of past donors. This chapter draws on views of Thomas Jefferson—noted critic of institutions that favor the dead over the living—to illustrate the problem of “dead-hand control.” Jefferson’s perspective helps us to appreciate that donations meant to benefit future persons may also mistreat them by imposing conditions on their use of resources. The chapter argues that generations have an interest in sovereignty over their common affairs that qualifies how resources can be donated across time. Though it ultimately defends the practice of intergenerational philanthropy, the chapter also shows how taking the value of sovereignty seriously recommends restrictions on the duration that donors can expect to have their wills honored.
{"title":"In Usufruct to the Living","authors":"T. Lechterman","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197611418.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197611418.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"An especially underappreciated problem regarding philanthropic power concerns the way in which charitable gifts exercise control over future generations. Charitable bequests and trusts, which are popular instruments of donation, bind future generations to respect the wills of past donors. This chapter draws on views of Thomas Jefferson—noted critic of institutions that favor the dead over the living—to illustrate the problem of “dead-hand control.” Jefferson’s perspective helps us to appreciate that donations meant to benefit future persons may also mistreat them by imposing conditions on their use of resources. The chapter argues that generations have an interest in sovereignty over their common affairs that qualifies how resources can be donated across time. Though it ultimately defends the practice of intergenerational philanthropy, the chapter also shows how taking the value of sovereignty seriously recommends restrictions on the duration that donors can expect to have their wills honored.","PeriodicalId":276714,"journal":{"name":"The Tyranny of Generosity","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127960208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197611418.003.0002
T. Lechterman
The chapter considers what kinds of goods and services a democratic polity should furnish via donation. Donations are a well-known solution to the problem of “public goods,” goods with characteristics that prevent efficient market provision. But are all such goods equally appropriate objects of philanthropy? Common arguments fail to appreciate that part of democracy’s value lies in reserving certain decisions for collective control. Democracy, the chapter argues, makes citizens sovereign over the legislation and administration of matters of basic justice. Citizens’ interests in democratic sovereignty supply a strong reason to maintain public control over public goods that are intimately linked to fundamental rights, duties, and opportunities. The argument helps to justify and explain discomfort that many share about privately sponsored social assistance and private funding of public schools. It also indicates that philanthropy for goods more distant from basic justice—such as the arts, research, sport, and religion—may be easier to justify in democratic terms.
{"title":"Of Sovereignty and Saints","authors":"T. Lechterman","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197611418.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197611418.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"The chapter considers what kinds of goods and services a democratic polity should furnish via donation. Donations are a well-known solution to the problem of “public goods,” goods with characteristics that prevent efficient market provision. But are all such goods equally appropriate objects of philanthropy? Common arguments fail to appreciate that part of democracy’s value lies in reserving certain decisions for collective control. Democracy, the chapter argues, makes citizens sovereign over the legislation and administration of matters of basic justice. Citizens’ interests in democratic sovereignty supply a strong reason to maintain public control over public goods that are intimately linked to fundamental rights, duties, and opportunities. The argument helps to justify and explain discomfort that many share about privately sponsored social assistance and private funding of public schools. It also indicates that philanthropy for goods more distant from basic justice—such as the arts, research, sport, and religion—may be easier to justify in democratic terms.","PeriodicalId":276714,"journal":{"name":"The Tyranny of Generosity","volume":"113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133679100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197611418.003.0001
T. Lechterman
This introductory chapter begins with a case study of a prominent donation by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Reactions to this announcement represent a common trend in criticism of philanthropy that overlooks the value of democracy. The chapter offers a formal definition of philanthropy as a social practice constituted by impersonal gratuitous transfers of private property. It reports recent statistics about the practice’s development. It argues that philanthropy raises distinctive political questions. It summarizes recent work on philanthropy in moral and political philosophy, noting its limited appreciation of democratic concerns. The chapter closes with a preview of the subsequent chapters and a disclaimer about the selective treatment of topics.
{"title":"Looking the Gift Horse in the Mouth","authors":"T. Lechterman","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197611418.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197611418.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"This introductory chapter begins with a case study of a prominent donation by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. Reactions to this announcement represent a common trend in criticism of philanthropy that overlooks the value of democracy. The chapter offers a formal definition of philanthropy as a social practice constituted by impersonal gratuitous transfers of private property. It reports recent statistics about the practice’s development. It argues that philanthropy raises distinctive political questions. It summarizes recent work on philanthropy in moral and political philosophy, noting its limited appreciation of democratic concerns. The chapter closes with a preview of the subsequent chapters and a disclaimer about the selective treatment of topics.","PeriodicalId":276714,"journal":{"name":"The Tyranny of Generosity","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115840722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：