Philanthropy, for all intents and purposes, is nothing more than an option to make. As
this
initiative derives from one’s wish and will to make the world a better place to live in, it is unjustifiable to judge their sincerity based on the values of their donation, or worse, their external material belongings.
Therefore
, I strongly oppose the notion that the rich are solely in charge of donating to charity.
There are certain grounds on which my arguments are built.
First
and foremost, living above the middle class does not necessarily label the wealthy as life-long philanthropists.
This
is to say that there are, at all times, other ways for both the middle stream and even the poor to help those in dire need. Prevailing examples are ones where
people
from all walks of life give away food,
clothesCorrect word choice
show examples
,
makingWrong verb form
show examples
time for voluntary
work
at nurseries, or deprived remote areas. What consistently appears conspicuous is that as long as the donors are whole-hearted, the delivered degree of care will all be paramount, be
itsCorrect pronoun usage
show examples
formCorrect your spelling
show examples
pictures, or on-time birthday presents. Another scenario to consider is one in which the only
Correct your spelling
show examples
care-giversCorrect your spelling
show examples
are not always present,
thus
it is explicit that the significance of those living below the richness line is to be highlighted. When the rich are helplessly inaccessible to the reality of destitution, it is the opportunity, even a necessity that those living nearby, whether able to make ends meet or not, to report to the
or
stake-holdersCorrect your spelling
show examples
for instant
succorChange the spelling
show examples
as well.
Above all the rationales, it is each and every citizen’s duty to assist their underprivileged compatriots. A society could encompass
people
of all kinds,
hence
for it to thrive,
people
should altogether shoulder the burdens, starting from a mission just as light as charity
work
, like John F. Kennedy once said, “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.” In that way, not only would these citizens voluntarily keep up their meaningful contribution, but they
also
could feel motivated, knowing they are given worthwhile credit for their participation.
On the other hand
, when the heavier side of the yoke is compressed only upon the wealthy, they might be pressured
thinkingChange the verb form
show examples
that their values lie solely on money,
consequently
hesitating the thought of persisting with their good
work
. From many perspectives, there is the paradox that the more one has the more he should give away;
however
,
people
are in
fullAdd an article
show examples
authority of their support level, no matter how rich or poor they may be.
Therefore
, it is unwise that they are to be circumscribed by any criteria of donation.
In conclusion, I find myself nowhere near agreeable with
people
who regard one’s financial capacity as the ultimate index of their philanthropy for the aforementioned reasons.
Hopefully,
throughChange preposition
show examples
abandoning
such
a limitation in
human’sChange noun form
show examples
awareness, the act of doing charity
work
would no longer seem a far-fetched deed to our society.