Philanthropy has a long history and has been the subject of many philosophers’ thinking. One famous quote comes from Aristotle: "To give away money is an easy matter and in any man's power. But to decide to whom to give it, and how large, and when, and for what purpose and how, is neither in every man's power nor an easy matter." I have recently come across another philosopher from the medieval ages, Maimonides, who lived between 1138 to 1204. They gifted us with the ladder of charity which sets out 8 levels of giving:
8 grudgingly
7 cheerfully but less than you can afford
6 when asked
5 without being asked
4 where the recipient knows the giver
3 where the giver knows the recipient
2 where giver and recipient are unknown to each other
1 helping someone to become self-sufficient
What does this tell us today?
First, the idea that there is a hierarchy in how we view different types of giving still exists. Current debates include that unrestricted giving is better than restricted. Maimonides is definite about their ordering, but in some cases I would argue that ‘it depends’. For example, giving without being asked (number 5) could be viewed positively where a proactive donor provides funding without the need for an application form. However, without some contact and conversation, this approach runs the risk of the giver providing what they think is needed rather than what the recipient actually wants.
Secondly, what here is new? For Maimonides the highest form of charity was to offer someone a gift that sustained them before they needed help, perhaps by providing them with a loan or finding them a job. Today’s philanthropic loans, a focus on prevention, and addressing root causes rather than providing direct relief turn out not to be modern thinking after all.
Third, the different levels show that the intention of the giver is important regardless of the nature and size of the gift. The levels seem to take the perspective of the giver and I wonder if the order would change if seen through the lens of the recipient. Would today’s recipients prefer a large sum giving grudgingly than a small amount given cheerfully? Perhaps not. Feedback from fundraisers suggest that someone supporting their work is a real boost to morale alongside the money. And gifts coming with an agenda can be less well received. Some non-profits have policies for handling gifts that could be ‘tainted’ and affect their reputation.
Fourth, the ladder suggests that giving is diminished by recognition, with anonymous giving in second place in the hierarchy. Anonymous giving does have a place where donors need privacy for good reason. (I work with donors who remain anonymous). However, there are specific considerations with this type of giving. Recipients often want to thank a donor and inform them about their work. This is in part to build a relationship in the hope of further gifts, but also out of the wish to show appreciation and build connection with someone who cares about what they do. Being public with their giving can act as a role model for others and help build philanthropy as a social norm. I would add a new level where the giver goes public, not for their own reward but to draw attention to an issue and encourage others to give. And where this is done in partnership with the recipient.
Lastly, the ladder highlights the connection or distance between giver and recipient. This connection with a cause or a nonprofit is an important motivator to give, for example, when someone has first-hand experience or lost a loved one to a particular health issue. It is one of the drivers for giving locally where the difference is understood or seen. Others argue that it is important to give beyond personal experience and extend support to those we do not know, which would align with Maimonides ranking this up at second place.
So, all in all, this medieval hierarchy for how people give is still familiar and recognisable. Today, we could reframe it using a power or equity lens, perhaps the lowest rung being ‘giving in order to obtain personal advantage’ via ‘giving in partnership’ to ‘ceding decision-making to those most affected’. We could of course get rid of the idea of different types of giving being better altogether, but reflecting on this historical view against today’s practices has been interesting and I invite you to do the same.
Image credit: Photo by Anne Nygård on Unsplash