General Chat

thought it was an interesting topic

" Take the following scenario…

A nasty dictatorial regime with hideous human rights record offers an international charity £1 billion. The money would feed millions who are starving, save them from malaria, massively improve their quality of life.


Should the charity take the money?


Take the cash. The money can do good, even if it’s from a bad place

Must be anonymous. Only take it, if the unlikely event the dictator agrees anonymity, so s(he) doesn’t gain from publicity

Don’t take the cash. The money is tainted, taking it risks legitimising the dictator "

What do you think? I admit to being surprised at the percentages.

Don't take the cash. I work for a charitable organisation on a much smaller level and we have to be extremely careful who we accept donations from. Once you have accepted the money you align yourself with the donor.

Sue

I wouldn't trust the dictator, his reasons for giving the money may not be honourable, but its a tricky question, especially when helping people is involved.

That was my response also Sue,

I think you can guarantee a dictator's reason for giving would never be honourable Agatha.

xx

i would not accept the cash as there could be comeback later on and once you are involved you wont escape.

one rule when i worked in a bank was we were not allowed to accepts gifts from customers as it could compromise our position at a later date and even involve blackmail!

i also know that religious people who do not gamble because of their beliefs, would not accept any monetary gift from a member of their family when they won the lottery, even though they really needed the money because they say its "ill gotten gains".

florence

I think I'd have to go for the first option because I think if I was one of the starving millions I would think my problems more important than the morality of the charity

I suppose I would question why such a regime would want to make such a donation ;-))

No question, take the money and deny where it came from. BC XX

'Money' is 'good' & is not tainted by virtue of its source.

Perhaps those who desperately need assistance would have no difficulty in accepting a hand-out. An empty stomach is the great decider.

Let's not worry too much about the perceived consequences as described in some earlier comments. We should be happy to help out where possible.

On the news this morning, there was an item about various charitable organisations raising funds for Japan following their recent tragedy. Apparently, the Japanese Government has refused the offer of financial help - they can manage pretty much on their own.

I'm sure the money raised will find a new home.

so in essence one group of people, ie the starving...is 'more important' than another group of people , ie those suffering under said dictator?

Because of course a dictator is not forking out from his own pocket here....the money will be coming from his downtrodden people won't it?

RR - So, give it to the downtrodden like we continue to do it seems only to find out that most of it gets sidetracked once again by the Dictator.

A real money-go-round or, is that what we call 'dirty money'!

There is no comfort to be gained from the sufferings of others.

Tainted money.

Wouldn't touch it.

Gwynne

As someone else said my first question would be Why would these people offer money for charity. Maybe they think that it would make people look at them in a different light. Also, what would they be expecting in return.?
I would not take the money for those reasons because the connections made would possible have repercussions.
I may be cynical, but usually nothing comes without strings.
Sue

Rose I don't see how taking the money would be weighing up victims of the regime against the starving millions. The former have already suffered - whatever you do won't change that. Very easy to dismiss the money on moral grounds when you have a full belly.

I agree up to a point Uggers ....but would any dictator give that money without wanting 'payback' of some sort? the gratitude of other nations to 'good old President X' for his humanitarian work, acceptance by the international community, propping up his regime , good publicity and the turning of a blind-eye ...... and it wouldn't be just to those who have already suffered...it would be those who WOULD suffer as long as said dictator was in power?

On an individual level, we would all send our ethics to hell in a hand cart to feed or protect our starving or ill child... i certainly would.

We all make our own 'morality' given whatever situation we are in..as you say " Very easy to dismiss the money on moral grounds when you have a full belly."

Rose I always think people who criticise our overseas aid policy should be sent over to visit the people who are so badly in need with the funds to help them. If you could look a dying child in the eye without helping when you have a handful of food fair enough - I know I couldn't. I suppose I see this similarly - if I was the victim of a regime would I want it's ill gotten money to help the starving millions? Probably.

I couldn't either Uggers, and I certainly am never going to be the one to criticise our aid policy, or personal giving..if only a fraction gets to where it ought it is better than nothing in my view...

It's a good point you make there.......it must be, because i don't have a ready answer to it ;)) I suppose my answer would be if I ( or more to the point those I love) was the victim of the regime, I would rather the money went for good 'somewhere' ..but I wouldn't want to be 'forgotten' because of it?

Yeah I feel the same

What I AM certain of , as I've got older the less 'black and white' things have become lol, I can't make up my mind if that's a good or bad thing?

I see it as a good thing Rose (or perhaps I'm saying that cos I've been seeing shades of grey since I was about 20, lol!)