With Christmas just around the corner, the kindness and goodness of people in our society is more prominent than at any other point in the calendar year. The question being debated last night at the University Philosophical Society was the giving nature of people – of celebrities, to be more precise. Do celebrities have any place in helping those less fortunate than themselves?
Opening the debate was Jack Counihan. Counihan spoke about the “self-interest” of celebrities who become involved in charities and how there was no way that celebrities weren’t doing it in some way for their image in the media. “It’s a transaction”, explained Counihan, “there’s no giving for the sake of giving, they want something in return”. In an era of social media, validation and affirmation are easily accessible. Counihan accused celebrities of only being concerned with certain issues and certain charities because their fans on social media will praise them for such actions. The “self-interest” argument presented here by Counihan was a running thread throughout the rest of the debate.
First up for the opposition bench was Shivangi Sareen. Sareen began her argument with the simple statement that celebrity involvement in charity work is very beneficial and that celebrity attention and endorsement can work very well, just as it does when they promote a product or service. Sareen used the example of Emma Watson working on the UN Women’s HeForShe campaign to promote gender equality, and how Watson’s own experiences with sexism helped her argument and endorsement of the campaign. Sareen questioned where the wrongdoing was in celebrities helping to raise awareness and make a change, no matter the charitable cause to which they’re drawing attention. “Celebrity endorsement is not everything”, admitted Sareen, “but their support can help to reach new audiences”.
Fr Peter McVerry was the only guest speaker amongst a table of student speakers. McVerry’s is a renowned name in Ireland for the work he does helping the homeless with the charity the Peter McVerry Trust. McVerry began his speech by agreeing that fundraising done by celebrities is effective, but that this doesn’t mean that it’s right. McVerry took issue with the structures that are present in our society that reward the successful people whilst disregarding those that need help. “We are living in a global economy that values the wealthy” argued McVerry, as he described how celebrities are endorsing the unjust economic structures of the world by donating to charities. “Why”, wondered McVerry, “should the Peter McVerry Trust have to raise funds to support the homeless? The state should be doing it”. According to McVerry, if we create more just structures, there will be less need for charities and for fundraising. McVerry’s speech worked well as a critique of the unjust society in which we live, but just missed out on explaining why celebrities shouldn’t be involved in helping those less fortunate.
Hugh Ó Laoide took to the podium next, and proclaimed that not only do those speaking on the opposition not regret celebrity involvement in charities, but that they openly embrace this celebrity involvement. Ó Laoide simplified the argument by saying that “charities need money, celebrities help them get that… So, what’s the problem with people getting the help that they need?”, and admitting that he just doesn’t see the proposition’s point. This statement was met with laughter and a round of applause. Ó Laoide closed on the statement that the proposition speakers were failing to mention what would happen if celebrities stopped getting involved in charity.
Caoimhin Hamill brought a new perspective to the debate by defining the supposed “charity work” that some celebrities do as “philanthropic work”, instead. Hamill distinguished between charitable works and philanthropic works, claiming that the former is a short-term issue and the latter is a long-term issue. Charities operate in the short term to fix a problem, but philanthropy addresses and tries to solve long-term issues. Are we distracting from the issues that really matter? “Why should we try to alleviate suffering when we can prevent it from ever happening in the first place?”, asks Hamill. “Charity involvement fails if the philanthropic issue is not addressed first” explained Hamill, as he summed up by saying that celebrities have no interest in being involved in charity, and that their power, influence and resources would be better spent on philanthropic work.
Catherine O’Brien, speaking third for the opposition bench, argued that celebrity involvement is good regardless of their motivations, and that what truly matters are the results that come from their involvement. Such results and donations can’t be achieved by us “ordinary people” no matter how deserving the cause is. O’Brien mentioned Live Aid as an example of beneficial celebrity involvement in a charitable issue. In 1985, Live Aid raised awareness of the plight of those suffering due to the Ethiopian famine. As well as awareness, Bob Geldof and Midge Ure succeeded in raising over £150 million to go towards the cause. For this reason, O’Brien said that celebrity involvement in charity work is “absolutely essential”.
Closing the argument for the proposition, Poppy Russell took to the podium to speak about how charities become monopolised in the media by celebrity involvement. Celebrities may be well-intentioned, but they exist in this context as uninformed voices, speaking on an issue that they shouldn’t be involved in. Russell said that experts on these issues exist for a reason, and would be better and more informative spokespeople than celebrities.
Hugh Fitzgibbon brought the debate to a close by addressing what he considered to be the crux of the debate as a whole: Is celebrity interest harmful to the work of charities? Fitzgibbon stated that he agreed with McVerry’s “scathing review” of capitalism and the unequal society in which we live, but he also believes that the argument had no place in the debate. Fitzgibbon claimed that “intention does not matter” and that “we should not look at the people who contribute to charity, but to those who benefit from them”.
The debate ended with the motion being thrown out to the floor. The audience were asked to say “aye” if they believed the proposition had won, and “nay” if the opposition had made the better argument. There was a resounding chorus of “nay”, and it was decided that the motion had fallen.
