Why do charities have to exist?

Question

What I mean is this: In a society in which we are conscious and aware that basic health is crucial to life, why do we have to rely on charities to help fund things like cancer, breast cancer, sick children etc.?
Why does money have to come into something so fundamental as preserving life?
Are we that socially retarded that we have to rely on the (excellent) work and goodwill of charities to help support life?

Answer 1

I think that people in general want to keep what they have to themselves. It is programmed into us to be selfish to preserve our genes. It takes a lot for us to overcome our natural drives and to give to charities even if they fund things that aren't necessarily fundamental for us. There is of course an element of self-interest in all we do, but charity is an excellent example of how socially advanced we are. The next step is for health care and education to be equally available to all [the world over]. I can't see that happening in my life time but I believe it will happen in the future.

Answer 2

I think there are several answers to this question.

Regardless of one's beliefs, most everyone agrees that it is the duty of those who have to help those who have not. I believe it is something built into human beings. It makes people feel good to help those less fortunate.

However, scientific research is extremely expensive. The government (which is funded by all taxpayers in the United States) can't afford to spend those huge funds of money on those particular causes. So the charities go outside of the government to look for money.

Another issue is government control. If a project is funded by government money, then the government has the right to tell the project managers how to spend the money.

Our country already spends roughly 50% of its annual budget on social programs. The biggest slice of that pie is Social Security and Medicare. Every person in the United States, regardless of whether they have never earned a penny in their lives or whether they are millionaires, is entitled to Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits when they turn age 65. And these are programs that you and I are funding today. The money that our employers take out of our paychecks does not go into an account with our names on it. It goes to the retired lady down the street.

That's why many are opposed to the government sticking its nose into areas that charities serve.

Answer 3

Money has a great deal to do with everything in life. As long as it does, charities are necessary to be an example of kindness. Otherwise we'd have no reason to give to others or to ask for help and be on the receiving end. It would all stop, we'd be like robots kind of.
If you volunteer for a charity you will benefit from the rewards first hand. Seeing someone happy because of what you did. It's a basic human need.

Answer 4

Charities are our method of addressing those issues. They prove that people do care and are willing to do something about it.

Since money is the main method of trade in our society, it is necessary to have it to run programs for the general good. Some organization has to exist to handle that money, and we call those charities. While I believe government could play a greater role in providing those programs, we get the same effect with charities, minus the bureaucracy. It seems like a pretty good system to me.

I will add that it is sad that many people who could contribute do not.

Answer 5

Here's the thing: There is enough of everything in the world. The problem is distribution.

Charities are centers of distribution that focus on funneling resources to a particular need. They do the footwork of providing services that would be much more difficult for an individual, with their own responsibilities to their own lives/children/causes, to do on their own.

Doctors and scientists need to eat and to provide for their families too, so they need to be paid while they devote their time and expertise to research and medicine. Therefore, money is necessary. Research charities help provide it by funneling extra money from the populace at large to this necessity.

Answer 6

They don't HAVE to exist...

But I'm glad they do. In my humble opinion it makes for a nicer world.
In a perfect world, we shouldn't have to need them. But we're not in a perfect world.
I come from a country with a GREAT social security. We do fund healthcare.But still some people will fall between the mazes somehow, or just a hospitalisation doesn't quite "fix" it. - there might be a need for a self-help group, etc.

Not to mention charities abroad, like Africa.

Answer 7

Who would you have do this work, the government?

I dont really understand what the alternative is. It is either a charity, a business, or the gvt.

The gvt doesnt have any business involved in this. It isnt their job. A business would have to profit from it to stay viable. So charities make the most sense, or non profit organizations to do this type of research and work.

Answer 8

If the same effort and money went into preserving life as it does in taking life (weapons) the charities of this world would be out of business and happy to be so.

Answer 9

In a perfect society, there would be no need for charities. However, we live in a society governed on the cheap for the benefit of the greedy. There's no votes in generosity. The only way we can fund various needs is voluntarily and charities are the mechanism for bringing this about.

Answer 10

No no no.... Societies are as ignorant as ever. I have charity and informational campaigns going on, and I was surprised on how little people actually knew about nature and the role human has in it. But it will never change. People will continue to be ignorant until the planet is destroyed by them.