A group of people considers that to help people directly is better while from others’ perspectives the local and international organizations are more effective to engage in charity activities. In this essay, we will discuss the characteristics of two distinctive approaches.
The people who want to support others can easily access to organizations which arrange such type of activities and they create the special funds that the donations are gathered from different parts of the globe. If you contact the philanthropic organizations, it will be easy to find out to whom you want to help. However, in some cases, people cannot determine where they should spend their money. On the other hand, the international organizations make distances reachable. It means that it does not matter where you are, you can help the people who live in the feminine in Africa or the children who work in the sweatshops in Vietnam. In other words, such types of non-profit entities make endowment activities available to the people who live with a busy schedule and do not have enough opportunities to take part directly.
There is another assertion that to help others directly is more beneficial for both sides. It would give more spiritual impact when you personally meet the people in need. The communication with them would have more influence on you than the acknowledgments given by the organizations. Although it is difficult to determine and directly involve the donation events in foreign countries, there are a lot of volunteers such as doctors, academicians, celebrities or ordinary people who go and live in Africa to be part of the different face of the world. In this case, your money will directly spend on necessities in spite of the administrative costs of organizations.
In conclusion, the aim of both opinions is the same and I do not consider that there are any limitations on how to feel responsibility. Individual conditions put such type of dilemmas and make people tend to help from a distance while the moral side of issue demand face to face interaction with people in need.
A group of
people
considers that to
help
people
directly
is better while from others’ perspectives the local and international
organizations
are more effective to engage in charity activities. In this essay, we will discuss the characteristics of two distinctive approaches.
The
people
who
want to support others can
easily
access to
organizations
which arrange such type of
activities and
they create the special funds that the donations
are gathered
from
different
parts of the globe. If you contact the philanthropic
organizations
, it will be easy to find out to whom you want to
help
.
However
, in
some
cases,
people
cannot determine where they should spend their money. On the
other
hand, the international
organizations
make
distances reachable. It means that it does not matter where you are, you can
help
the
people
who
live
in the feminine in Africa or the children
who
work in the sweatshops in Vietnam. In
other
words, such types of non-profit entities
make
endowment activities available to the
people
who
live
with a busy schedule and do not have
enough
opportunities to
take part
directly
.
There is another assertion that to
help
others
directly
is more beneficial for both sides. It would give more spiritual impact when you
personally
meet
the
people
in need. The communication with them would have more influence on you than the acknowledgments
given
by the
organizations
. Although it is difficult to determine and
directly
involve the donation
events
in foreign countries, there are
a lot of
volunteers such as doctors, academicians, celebrities or ordinary
people
who
go and
live
in Africa to be part of the
different
face of the world.
In this case
, your money will
directly
spend on necessities
in spite of
the administrative costs of organizations.
In conclusion
, the aim of both opinions is the same and I do not consider that there are any limitations on how to feel responsibility. Individual conditions put such type of dilemmas and
make
people
tend to
help
from a distance while the moral side of issue demand face to face interaction with
people
in need.