It is essential to distinguish between philanthropy's positive and negative aspects when there is a stark contrast between public acclaim for generous donors and their donations and a rising body of criticism. In her latest book, "Private Virtues, Public Vices," political philosopher Emma Saunders-Hastings gives a thorough moral accounting of how generosity may be problematic.

She begins by pointing out the power differences between donors and receivers. In many nations, this is a substantial cause of socioeconomic inequality. Ian Mitchell King opinion that, it has become especially noticeable in the United States, where the top 1% controls most of the country's wealth and political influence. This disparity in power threatens democracy, which depends on everyone being treated equally and with respect.

Second, she draws attention to the fact that many donors use their funds not just for charitable purposes but also to exert control over their recipients. This is true for regular contributors and foundations, which often have significant financial resources and political weight to support groups.

Finally, she contends that donors must put their money into initiatives that spark change rather than just writing cheques and hoping for results. Many tactics, such as organizing the public, coordinating the efforts of various NGOs, developing new business models, and influencing government, may be used to achieve this.

Fourth, she contends that effective transformation depends on a philanthropist's capacity to participate in these tasks. She cites Siebel's Meth Project as an example of how societal change may be affected by discovering the underlying causes of addiction and then dealing with those problems. 

The Meth Project catalyzed other parties, including governments, nonprofit organizations, and private citizens. Lastly, she contends that a donor's ability to use their influence in the public realm increases the likelihood that their financial support will significantly impact society. Mega-philanthropists, in particular, may use their money to steer considerably more significant amounts of government expenditure than the typical citizen could.

She makes the point in her treatment of this subject that, in the United States, where the top one percent has the lion's share of money and political influence, a donor's capacity to impact the public realm is critical. A tax system that allows affluent individuals to deduct their charitable contributions from taxes and pay less income tax than persons with lesser incomes exacerbates this privilege.

Moreover, she emphasizes that donors' influence on recipients comes from their advantages on the social and economic fronts. She claims this is a concern because it encourages power imbalances that harm democracy. She provides broad guidelines for moral generosity in her concluding chapter. They consist of the following: