Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Should One Even Bother To Help Others?

 Or does it just breed a culture of dependency?
If we do choose to help others, is it best to so so through a group or organization - or is one-on-one assistance better?
The group has more and more varied resources but so many people apply for help though these organizations that much of the assistance becomes diluted to the point that it can't really make any measurable difference in the lives of those it is trying to help.
One-on-one assistance is often limited but it is often more focused, more nimble and able to adapt to each person's needs.
 Should we help those who have the least and often the least chance of doing better?
Or should we focus on the so-called 'Talented Tenth" in the hope that they will pay it forward?

2 comments:

DF said...

The organizational approach with a limited focus that they can accomplish will be the best of breed. What we have now is organizations that seem to handle everything.

So let's combine the two and that's a organization with a personal touch. If the organization only goal is to make sure kids have school clothes and they accomplish that. GOOD!

The talented tenth don't forget where they came from but they want to forget the nightmare of getting out of it. The individual is too iffy to rely on them to see something through so the organization has to be created.

If you look at the best ran organizations they only cover 1 one thing. If you look at the worst they cover everything like the homeless which require a 20 prong approach.

Desertflower said...

One has to help in the capacity that one can. That is civilization, that is example, it is the milk of human kindness. The world spins on it's axis because of that John :)