Review Of David Smith's Article Doing Good

Smith (2016) argues that giving is good, giving is fraught with moral perils and giving takes work. This declaration is acceptable for the fact that giving has a long-standing tradition that has continued to grow in our contemporary period. There are selfless individuals who have given up everything for a noble reason and for the benefit of others. For example, St. Mother Teresa, Bill and Melinda Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Robert Mercer, and David Koch are probably the recognized examples of selfless givers in recent times. The question is what motivates people to give and what is the value of giving? Why do people sacrifice their time and energy to philanthropic activities? The researchers have found answers to

In other words, individuals seem to derive more benefits from the act of providing for themselves than from the benefits that their gifts will empower others. To expatiate further, we turn to the article Doing Good written by David Smith published in “the nature of nonprofit sector” edited by Steven Otto and Lisa Dicke. Accordingly, Smith (2016) argues that giving is good, giving is fraught with moral perils and giving takes work. First, Smith underscores that giving is good since it is the collective corporate social responsibility of all. As a matter of fact, gift are transactions that knit a social group together, and established personal relations, however, not giving a gift can cause a major social rupture (Smith, 2016). Secondly, giving a gift has a religious implication and integrity. For instance, the story of the penurious widow that Jesus praises in the bible for her small contribution is a benchmark. Unequivocally, Jesus commendation labeled the contribution as the "widow's mite" since her gift had the greater value than the larger contributions of the wealthy donors. Thirdly, giving is fraught and morally perilous since meeting social needs through giving is morally risky. Nowadays givers expect appreciation and gratitude for gifts received and once the sign of appreciation and acknowledgement is not up to standard, givers feel betrayed and the act of the giver

A particular kind of historical change, which has a practically intelligible character and direction. The first observation that we are entering a paradigm shift surfaced in the New York Times and the Washington Post in 2016/2017. In these articles, Ariana Eunjung and David Gelles publicized this paradigm shift, citing the determinations of Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan in getting rid of the world’s major diseases by the end of the century. The question of entering into a new paradigm Shift requires a systematic analysis. The answer is categorically clear that the technological revolution of computers and the Internet is transforming everything in our world. Furthermore, philanthropy’s economy is being transformed by the enormous new wealth in younger hands created by that technology and the globalization of the market. The fundamental reason in my opinion is information garnered from studies of this new, young, wealth-creating mega-donors from Gelles and Chan. Evidence from these writers’ reports that Mark and Priscilla uniformly reject the traditional rhetoric and conceptualization of “giving back,” “giving away,” to “nonprofits,” in the “third sector.” The couples discovered this too negative and academic, and in its place, they think in positive personal terms based on venturing into philanthropy to change the world and to make a difference. According to Gelles and