So glad you brought your post to my attention. Thank you. Many points jumped out at me. One in particular was that the Goodwill founder said it to be “not charity, but a chance.” Perhaps a piece of this puzzle is that charity IS a chance, a chance for all of us to make the world a better place. As with other comments, it’s not one or the other but both.

Thanks, Matthew, for contributing to this lively discussion!

Beautifully said, Kevin. Your introduction of the concept of rights and how that fits into making the world a better place is very interesting. Will have to keep thinking on that one. Thank you for your thoughtful comment!

You and Akhtar make me realize how much this is an ‘and’ conversation vs. a ‘but’ or ‘either/or’. Thank you!

While both charity and philanthropy essentially mean love of man (or humanity), they come to us from different languages: Latin and Greek, respectively.

Charity has more cultural currency, probably because of its use in holy texts, but I see no need to create a fundamental distinction between these two beautiful words that have the same meaning.

I don’t know if there is a single word that can mean “working to permanently correct systemic injustice/inhumanity.”

I would submit that such a word should not be founded on the concept of love. Love can be a motivator to action, but in the end, laws must be rewritten. We would need to start speaking of “rights.”

As it stands, we already have the right to love and be loved. We do not, however, have the right to eat, or the right to shelter, or the right to a job.

Thanks for chiming in, Akhtar! Your clarifying points about time horizon–i.e. philanthropy takes place over time–and level of intention are very helpful. I also like Dana’s suggestion of thinking of charitable acts as stepping stones to philanthropy.

Here’s to more charity AND philanthropy!

Hadn’t thought about charitable acts as a stepping stone/way of learning about being philanthropic in quite those terms. What a great idea, Dana!