“Philanthropists” are not Philanthropists
by Jason Stotts
So when someone says that they are a “philanthropist”, what does that mean to you? Does it mean someone who is selfless and cares for others, someone who does community work, someone who helps needy people, or does it mean someone who loves Man?
If you said the last one then you’re right, otherwise you’re using a stolen concept.
You see, “philanthropist” literally means “a lover or Man”, a person who values Man and who wants Man to succeed in his endeavors. I am of course referring to Man as the species, not the gender…people who love man the gender are called women.
Anyway, a person who is typically called a “philanthropist” usually has the type of mentality that says “this person cannot help themselves so must be cared for”. This however, is a horrible mistake. It is a violation of Rule 2 (The greatest harm can result from the best intentions) because by “helping” someone in this way, you destroy their ability and/or drive to help themselves.
Part of what determines the kind of person that we are is our independence and our ability to care for ourselves. A person who is dependent upon others and who is unable to take care of themselves is not autonomous and is less of a person than one who can. Just as a child is not a full person (partly for their dependence and partly for their lack of development), a person who cannot take care of themselves is deficient and not a full person. It is for this reason that people who are mentally retarded are considered to be less than full people, they are not cognitively developed properly and cannot take care of themselves.
So, the point of that digression is that people typically called philanthropists are actually hurting people in many cases and as such cannot be considered lovers of Man.
Let us be true Philanthropists and advocate the adoption of a rational objective system of Morality and be proud of our nature as humans, there are no nobler creatures in all existence.