Look the Gift Horse in the Mouth?

[The Free Joy State]

Aware that this is an unprecedented time -- for all of us -- I thought now seems like a good time for a lighter thread.

So... without further ado:

An acquaintance has legally come into a very large amount of money. They wish to share a significant percentage of their good fortune with you. The catch is that the source of that money is something that you personally consider morally wrong.

I cannot tell you what it is because I cannot tell you your opinions. Consider what you would personally strongly morally disagree with: being paid to run advertising campaigns against abortion if you are pro-choice (or vice-versa if you are pro-life), trading arms (legally) is you are anti-war, a golden parachute from a coal power plant if you favour environmental protections, or defending environmental protestors who stop fracking if you favour industry freedoms, being paid to produce propaganda pieces for a regime you absolutely oppose, receiving money for giving vitriolic speeches against x-gender/ethnic minority/person with x-disability/religion... Whatever your major bugbear(s) are, that's the source.

The questions are:

1. Would you accept the money in any circumstances. Why/Why not.
2. If you would, is there any circumstance under which you would reject the money?

1. There are some circumstances under which I would accept money gained through a source to which I morally oppose. I would try to mitigate the harm of the source of the money by donating a reasonable percentage of the gift to a charity that ameliorates any harm (for the coal power plant example, I'd donate to an environmental charity).
2. I would reject any money raised by weakening or demeaning basic human rights.

[Kragholm Free States]

Of course. The bad thing's been done and can't be undone, and the money exists regardless of whose hands it ends up in. At the very least if I take it I can use it to do some good.

[Andsed]

I would take the money. Denying it won’t change anything and with it I can help others.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I would say yes in theory, but in practice donating a large portion to good causes may be difficult since for very large donations there may be some questions about where the money comes from. Groups may then not *want* the money, which negates that part of the equation. I'm not sure how likely this is.

[Yohannes]

Would you accept the money in any circumstances.

I'm happy with my current financial situation. The value of my assets (government-backed long-term pension fund contributions, etc.) is slowly increasing and I keep my budget under control. Once I turn 30-35, I will have enough money to withdraw from my existing investment fund to afford an initial mortgage deposit (though I won't). No, I won't take the money.

Why

Because I don't need them

2. If you would, is there any circumstance under which you would reject the money?

I don't need the money, so I will most likely reject them, especially if I feel like it will harm my career (reputation at work, etc.)

[The Free Joy State]

I would say yes in theory, but in practice donating a large portion to good causes may be difficult since for very large donations there may be some questions about where the money comes from. Groups may then not *want* the money, which negates that part of the equation. I'm not sure how likely this is.

I think it's a YMMV.

Charities including the Salvation Army and the RSCPA rejected the News of the World's donation, and a Welsh charity for ill newborns refused a donation after learning it was raised by white men dressing as "African beach traders".

If someone's berserk button is choral singing and the acquaintance made a mint choral singing (… hey, could happen), it's probably fine. If it's someone shouting racist and sexist slurs and the acquaintance got rich giving vitriolic hate-speeches, the charity probably would be more likely to reject the donation if they knew.

Which is why I think -- for me personally -- there's a line on things where I could accept the money.

[North German Realm]

Honestly as long as I don't have to do any action (That I view morally wrong, even if it's legal) I'd take it.

[Ifreann]

I think it would depend on what I'd use the money for. If I was in dire financial straits I'd probably take the money. If I was just going to buy myself nice things with it then I'd refuse. Knowing where the money came from would probably taint my enjoyment of the nice things. And if I was going to use the money to fund some political or charitable cause then I'd probably refuse lest the source of the money do the cause more harm in terms of PR than good. Though maybe I'd accept if it could be spun as a PR victory. "Bad People unwittingly fund Good Thing".

[Uan aa Boa]

Charities including the Salvation Army and the RSCPA rejected the News of the World's donation, and a Welsh charity for ill newborns refused a donation after learning it was raised by white men dressing as "African beach traders".

There was a thread a while back about Tommy Robinson (UK far right figure) and his offer to donate his salary from the European parliament, if elected, to charities. A surprising number of people in NSG didn't get why no charity could have accepted it. As someone who runs a charity I can tell you that the reputational damage would far and away outstrip the financial benefit. Anyone accepting would have been the philanthropic wing of the English Defence League literally forever.

If this hypothetical money came from something that is unacceptable to me but not to most people (e.g. meat) then I could effectively put it to charitable use, but some money is so tainted that about the only option would be putting cash in bags and leaving it on doorsteps.

Aware that this is an unprecedented time ...

In my head now I hear the QI klaxon whenever anyone uses that word.

[Thermodolia]

Take the money and run. It’s mine now. I really don’t care how it got there

[Purple Rats]

Accept the money, fix my situation, find a way to it give back (to those who it affect negatively)

[Thermodolia]

I would say yes in theory, but in practice donating a large portion to good causes may be difficult since for very large donations there may be some questions about where the money comes from. Groups may then not *want* the money, which negates that part of the equation. I'm not sure how likely this is.

I think it's a YMMV.

Charities including the Salvation Army and the RSCPA rejected the News of the World's donation, and a Welsh charity for ill newborns refused a donation after learning it was raised by white men dressing as "African beach traders".

If someone's berserk button is choral singing and the acquaintance made a mint choral singing (… hey, could happen), it's probably fine. If it's someone shouting racist and sexist slurs and the acquaintance got rich giving vitriolic hate-speeches, the charity probably would be more likely to reject the donation if they knew.

Which is why I think -- for me personally -- there's a line on things where I could accept the money.

That’s absolutely stupid. Why would anyone refuse money, especially money that’s being given to you

[The Free Joy State]

Charities including the Salvation Army and the RSCPA rejected the News of the World's donation, and a Welsh charity for ill newborns refused a donation after learning it was raised by white men dressing as "African beach traders".

There was a thread a while back about Tommy Robinson (UK far right figure) and his offer to donate his salary from the European parliament, if elected, to charities. A surprising number of people in NSG didn't get why no charity could have accepted it. As someone who runs a charity I can tell you that the reputational damage would far and away outstrip the financial benefit. Anyone accepting would have been the philanthropic wing of the English Defence League literally forever.

Oh, I remember that. No charity could have accepted that money without damaging their reputation and risking future donations.

Aware that this is an unprecedented time ...

In my head now I hear the QI klaxon whenever anyone uses that word.

Yeah, sorry about that. I couldn't think of a better word to sum it up.

I think it's a YMMV.

Charities including the Salvation Army and the RSCPA rejected the News of the World's donation, and a Welsh charity for ill newborns refused a donation after learning it was raised by white men dressing as "African beach traders".

If someone's berserk button is choral singing and the acquaintance made a mint choral singing (… hey, could happen), it's probably fine. If it's someone shouting racist and sexist slurs and the acquaintance got rich giving vitriolic hate-speeches, the charity probably would be more likely to reject the donation if they knew.

Which is why I think -- for me personally -- there's a line on things where I could accept the money.

That’s absolutely stupid. Why would anyone refuse money, especially money that’s being given to you

There are circumstances where I would accept the money. If it was something to which I object, but to which the harm caused can be ameliorated by an opposite action and which is not is not morally repugnant to me, I would accept the money and try to do some good with it (while keeping some for myself). But if my acquaintance had done something which I consider utterly morally reprehensible to earn it, I could not accept money which I considered utterly tainted (especially if I felt no charity would accept it) and would refuse.

As for the sentiment being "stupid"... perhaps you view it so, but my answer is my own; and many charities also show a preference for accepting only money from sources that are not morally questionable.

I do not wish there to be an environment of a right answer/wrong answer paradigm on this thread. This is also a personal preference, but wouldn't it be nice?

[Ifreann]

I think it's a YMMV.

Charities including the Salvation Army and the RSCPA rejected the News of the World's donation, and a Welsh charity for ill newborns refused a donation after learning it was raised by white men dressing as "African beach traders".

If someone's berserk button is choral singing and the acquaintance made a mint choral singing (… hey, could happen), it's probably fine. If it's someone shouting racist and sexist slurs and the acquaintance got rich giving vitriolic hate-speeches, the charity probably would be more likely to reject the donation if they knew.

Which is why I think -- for me personally -- there's a line on things where I could accept the money.

That’s absolutely stupid. Why would anyone refuse money, especially money that’s being given to you

Charities rely on public goodwill to keep donations rolling in. Negative PR from association with someone controversial could cost them more than the donation from the person in question. It's stupid to take a few thousand from Tommy Robinson if it costs you tens of thousands in the long run.

[Infected Mushroom]

I would take the money, provided there are no terrible legal consequences for taking it.

99%, take the money.

[Thermodolia]

That’s absolutely stupid. Why would anyone refuse money, especially money that’s being given to you

Charities rely on public goodwill to keep donations rolling in. Negative PR from association with someone controversial could cost them more than the donation from the person in question. It's stupid to take a few thousand from Tommy Robinson if it costs you tens of thousands in the long run.

I understand the view point I just think it’s silly to believe that money is somehow tainted depending where it comes from

[Zeritae]

Circumstances which I would reject are:
Racism, Anti-Environment Protest (like fossil fuel lobbyism), Human Trafficking, Robbery, etc.

[Ifreann]

Charities rely on public goodwill to keep donations rolling in. Negative PR from association with someone controversial could cost them more than the donation from the person in question. It's stupid to take a few thousand from Tommy Robinson if it costs you tens of thousands in the long run.

I understand the view point I just think it’s silly to believe that money is somehow tainted depending where it comes from

But it's not silly to believe that. Reputation is a thing. Donations can constitute influence. Do you think it's stupid of people to be mad about politicians taking money from industry lobbyists?

[Thermodolia]

I understand the view point I just think it’s silly to believe that money is somehow tainted depending where it comes from

But it's not silly to believe that. Reputation is a thing. Donations can constitute influence. Do you think it's stupid of people to be mad about politicians taking money from industry lobbyists?

If the politician does something in return for the lobbyists than ya I’d be miffed but if it’s just a gift no strings attached there’s really no issues.

[New Bremerton]

The source in this case would be someone with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party. I would not accept the money under any circumstances. This is literally a form of corruption. I'd rather die pauper than sell my soul.