“It is the apathetic person that sees the cause while the charitable person sees the need.”
There are two types of people in this world, ones that help others because of need and ones that do it to help themselves. Charity is the voluntary giving of help to those in need as a humanitarian act. As we develop through time, we begin to understand that we all are capable of helping others across the spectrum. Some do it simply for the feel-good factor, while others consider it a religious obligation. There is however, a minority of people who seize any opportunity to carry acts of goodness for monetary gains. (your two examples – feel-good and religious obligation aren’t about monetary gain so this sentence doesn’t really fit here) This injurious behaviour can cause significant damage to society, thus it is fundamental that we prioritise the safeguarding of every human being whether they are the chief beneficiary or the benevolent benefactor helping those out of empathy.
Due to the continuing economic divide in our society, more and more people are witnessing the benefits of humanitarianism. Children as young as five in developed countries are being taught to help others; similarly children of the same age but in third world countries are already carrying out the act in itself. In recent years, charity has been the forefront of the media, with publicity showing all acts in a positive light. Evidently, we are noticing a difference in the quality of life in some of the poorest countries of the world.
On the contrary, those in fame have been found to use philanthropy as a way to gain a worthy reputation in the eyes of the public. A form of fakery disguised by money and eminence. For example Angelina Jolie’s charitable act in adoption enabled her to secure the trust of millions of people and divert their attention from her wealth, to her qualities. A subtle cry for attention in another format. Similarly, there have been cases of apathetic, sordid politicians who have misled the public by claiming to promote charitable work as a way to prevent poverty during campaigns, but have later decided that other policies are far more crucial to implement. Fahrenthold noted in September that Trump paid a penalty in 2016 to the Internal Revenue Service for a 2013 donation in which the foundation gave $25,000 to a campaign group affiliated with Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi. This means that his foundation illegally used money that was supposed to go to charity for politics. As a result, such deception towards society triggered hate, anger and violence and to this day, thousands are still protesting against Trump, across the globe.
Furthermore, in recent weeks, there has been a spate of stories about wealthy individuals trying to reduce their tax bills. If assets are given to charity, one can claim income tax relief up to their entire value. For example, there has been a rise in the number of freehold property with an eight-year lease on it, being given to charity. The charity then holds the property for the term of that lease and benefits from any rental income during that period, but at the end of the lease the property reverts to the owner. As a result, there is a tax relief on the value of the freehold property, but not on the value of the lease. In London, a lease on a £1m house could be worth £50,000. This illustrates how apathetic individuals have the means, motive and opportunity to seek ways to benefit from a given situation, while a charitable person prioritises the need for others to benefit from the same situation.
To conclude, it is evident that the act of charitable work benefits a huge proportion of people including the beneficiaries and benefactors. It is through international legislations and powerful tools such as education and the media, that the need to carry out more humanitarian acts is shared vastly and quickly. We all stand united to continue to tackle the crisis of poverty in order to help others out of empathy. This will ensure that we live a long, happy and prosperous life.
You write well, your structure, grammer and vocabulary are good. However, I think you’re slightly lead astray by the quote. Whilst your essay about charity as a whole is good, so without the quote it would be great, but if you wanted to focus on this quote this is what I understood. From this quote I understood that apathy – disinterest/ unenthusiastic, so those that don’t really care see the cause whereas someone that wants to help others will see the need.
This is not to say that people that see the cause don’t donate to charity, because evidence suggests they do, but evidence says that if you are actually invested in a charity you donate up to 50% more. Ideally charities need people to feel inspired to donate and not pressured.
However, those that are apathetic are more likely to pick flaws in the charity and see where the need has originally risen from and either argue to themselves that it’s self-inflicted/ the governments problem and therefore donating money is only going to help in the short term and not the long term.
Both people are looking at the situation and seeing different things. This suggests to me that having intellect does not always make you a wise/ empathetic/ better person. E.g famine in Sudan, an apathetic person might look at the self-inflicted factors that have caused the famine such as the violence and conflict that have lead to the cutting off of supply routes and the sky high food prices. Whereas the charitable person would see the people in need and look at ways to help them directly.
To be honest I think this is a super hard quote so well done!!