Charities worked out some time ago what religion has known for aeons - when you need money to do good with, play to the guilt that accompanies success over our peers. It is uniquely human that we share our spoils with those we don't know, and Charities form a convenience model for philantropy, akin to cars for transport and shops for produce.
But what does it say of us now, when charities have to resort to extreme moral blackmail to get the money to perform good acts? How is extreme passive aggression justified morally? Case in point is the current NSPCC advert campaign.
Crying children on screen, harrowing tales, and film noir direction point us to the dark heart of human cruelty. Our emotional response is natural, as is the knee jerk reaction to give money.
Some charities show us what good is done, but from what I have seen, this happens less and less. I don't watch television, and have only seen this for the first time, and I was repulsed - not by those who abuse children, but more by the abuse I received from the NSPCC. This post can only be short as time is pressing, but here is my question:
Whose fault is it that the NSPCC now have to use the tactics of those they work against to get money to fund that work? Is it ours or theirs?
Sapere Aude,
M.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment