Can money be tainted by ‘evil’? poll discussion

Former_MSE_Sunny

Poll started 28 March 2011:



Can money be tainted by ‘evil’?

Can money itself be bad, or is the morality only about what you do with it? Take the following scenario…

A nasty dictatorial regime with hideous human rights record offers an international charity £1 billion. The money would feed millions who are starving, save them from malaria, massively improve their quality of life.

Should the charity take the money?

Take the cash. The money can do good, even if it’s from a bad place
Must be anonymous. Only take it, if the unlikely event the dictator agrees anonymity, so s(he) doesn’t gain from publicity
Don’t take the cash. The money is tainted, taking it risks legitimising the dictator


Please vote here, or click post reply to discuss below. Thanks

Mortgage26

The charity should take the money. Put it into a trust and used when there is a significant need for the charity in the dictator's own country. It was probably there due to illegal activities, redirecting international funds ear-marked for a development scheme or the selling of medical or military aid equipment. In any of these cases his own (not true!) money .... blood or otherwise... would never be used for the benefit of the people. So I say the charity should hold onto it in time of need. .... knowing full well the truth.

meher

MSE_Sunny wrote: »

Can money itself be bad

No; it's just a tool and for the same reason I disagree with this:

MSE_Sunny wrote: »

Must be anonymous. Only take it, if the unlikely event the dictator agrees anonymity, so s(he) doesn’t gain from publicity

gwinnie says it for me here:

gwinnie wrote: »

view any overture as an opportunity to negotiate. The focus is not the money but setting the terms of the transaction - leveraging what the dictator wants (if acceptable) to achieve progress for those under his power.

More importantly not all charities might find the dictator and hideous human rights record by western terms specially when we have a tradition of slagging off a world leader like Ahmadinajed for instance as dictators and/or cultures that are different to us as oppressive when the reality more often than not is that we're wilfully ignorant of everything that's inconvinient to our political aesthetics. It doesn't work that way anymore I'm afraid. Everyone has vested interests, the idea imo is to manipulate it and always be a step ahead and on top of the game.

wilsongaz

They should not take the money. In my local area, as with many area in the UK, we have people who launder money and carry out illegal activities for finicial gain. I totally disagree with the actions of anyone who avoids paying tax or is involved in illegal activities, but it is really easy to accept money off them when they are flaunting it about.

I got bit in the as* a few years back when I was younger and let a known drug lord buy me and my partner entry to a VIP nightclub. It didn't twig at that point, but he couldn't spend the money legit and ended up buying all the drinks all night. He then in the weeks ahead expected me to oblige to a few of his requests.

He was a dangerous man with a lot of cash, and I was a dumb 19 yr old who was skint, however I knew when to run and did the right thing.

I hope my anology makes sense, but I feel it is the same principle.

In my opinon and experience, never have any affilation to dirty money, no matter how good the offer may seem.

Also I don't see what religion has to do with it, or the so called "West". I live a nice simple life now, and the way I see it there are good people and Bad people, avoid the bad and you will be better off in the long run, simplez.

Gareth_Lazelle

By taking the money, the charity is making it easier for the dictator to commit further atrocities in the future.

(the cleaning up of the dictators image by making the donation might keep him in power for longer, or help stabilise his image outside of his own country resulting in less outside pressure to change),

So while the money might help millions, millions might also be harmed by it,

Take your pick...

tryingtoretire

By accepting the money you are condoning the action which was taken to 'earn' it. The same as the 'Blood Diamonds' scenario in Africa. If you've not heard of it then google it.

rickbonar

What about the British I think some would describe them as a nasty dictatorial regime with plenty of blood money... hey we're fighting for the wells in Libya today as we're running out cheap supplies it's hitting US and UK industries hard and making it more difficult to recover from the banking crisis and recession ... Mr Mugabe doesn't have the right kind of wells (yet) to justify protecting his people from a butchering tyrant. Hey but they will soon if the US decide to liberate them!

adrian_clark

rickbonar wrote: »

What about the British I think some would describe them as a nasty dictatorial regime with plenty of blood money... hey we're fighting for the wells in Libya today as we're running out cheap supplies it's hitting US and UK industries hard and making it more difficult to recover from the banking crisis and recession ... Mr Mugabe doesn't have the right kind of wells (yet) to justify protecting his people from a butchering tyrant. Hey but they will soon if the US decide to liberate them!

In Libya we call the government opposition, rebels, in Afghanistan, insurgents, in the Basque region of Spain terrorists. Something to think about.

taurean_rager

I don't normally condone using blood/dirty money and if offered it myself would totally refuse it, no matter what the amount.

However if it really was such a vast amount and it really would be used to help millions who desperately needed help, no matter where it came from, then yes of course it should be used for that purpose.

I would not however give them the satisfaction of publicity for their donation, no matter what their generosity, they do not deserve that!

And at the end of the day, most of the planet is run on blood/dirty/corrupt money by corrupt people!

heatherkayejones

The ends do not justify the means. The charity should not taint its own reputation by association with a donation from someone whose values do not conform with those of the charity.

rpb

I wonder what message it sends if we actively attempt to stop bad people doing good things...