Humanitarianism is based on a view that all human beings deserve respect and dignity and should be treated as such. Therefore, humanitarians work towards advancing the well-being of humanity as a whole. It is the antithesis of the "us vs. them" mentality that characterizes tribalism and ethnic nationalism. Humanitarians abhor slavery, violation of basic and human rights, and discrimination on the basis of features such as colour of skin, religion, ancestry, place of birth, etc. Humanitarianism is embraced by movements and people across the political spectrum.
A philanthropist is someone who engages in philanthropy; that is, someone who donates his or her time, money, or reputation to a charitable cause. The term may apply to any volunteer or to anyone who makes a donation, but the label is most often applied to those who donate large sums of money or who make a major impact through their volunteering, such as a trustee who manages a philanthropic organization.
A philanthropist may not always find universal approval for his/her deeds. Common accusations include supporting an iniquitous cause (such as funding art instead of fighting world hunger) or having selfish motivation at heart (such as avoiding taxes or attaining personal fame).
So I would say that a philanthropist may be a humanitarian, provided they work or donate toward a cause which helps humanity as a whole.
In response to humanitarianism relating to socialisim, I say the relation is partial at best. Humanitarianism is the promotion of human welfare. As such, it appears that humanitarianism presupposes some sort of action. Helping victims of natural disasters; donating money to impoverished countries; heck, there even exist humanitarian laws during times of war dictating that the wounded ought to be given treatment and that prisoners of war ought to be treated with dignitiy. Each of these either compels individuals to act or makes it incumbent on them not to do something in the name of humanity.
If you ask me, socialism is less direct. Socialism is an operating system for society. It is basically when the richer (not the truly rich, as they would not exist in a purely socialist society) have to support the poorer (not the poor, as they would not exist for the same reason as the rich). This can be set up in a number of ways: through tax systems, social welfare, various subsidies, etc. Most of these operate on a macro-economic scale.
To me, seeing the principal difference between socialism and humanitarianism involves looking at the connotations of each. Socialism is not universally praised and sometimes despised; many people feel they should not support those who have not worked but are reaping the benefits of living in a socialist society. Another reason for socialism being despised can perhaps be that the "communist" enemies of capitalism were actually socialist (USSR was never a communist society).
Humanitarianism, however, is almost always ubiquitously praised. Who wouldn't want to help hurricane victims or the impoverished? Humanitarian aid is always extolled and of course appreciated.
Ultimately, socialism is more of an operating system for societies (one would be hard-pressed to call an act a "socialistic" one) whereas humanitarianism has more to do with direct acts (e.g. humanitarian aid) or laws that govern ways of conduct (e.g. laws in respect to the humane treatment of prisoners of war). The difference I guess lies in that socialism is more associated with the inner functioning of states whereas humanitarianism is how states act either intranationally or internationally (e.g. many nations sending aid to the countries and victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake).
In the end, every humanitarian act is socialistic; but not everything that is socialist can be considered humanitarian (since some people may be deprived of what they rightfully deserve).
Comments
Humanitarianism is based on a view that all human beings deserve respect and dignity and should be treated as such. Therefore, humanitarians work towards advancing the well-being of humanity as a whole. It is the antithesis of the "us vs. them" mentality that characterizes tribalism and ethnic nationalism. Humanitarians abhor slavery, violation of basic and human rights, and discrimination on the basis of features such as colour of skin, religion, ancestry, place of birth, etc. Humanitarianism is embraced by movements and people across the political spectrum.
A philanthropist is someone who engages in philanthropy; that is, someone who donates his or her time, money, or reputation to a charitable cause. The term may apply to any volunteer or to anyone who makes a donation, but the label is most often applied to those who donate large sums of money or who make a major impact through their volunteering, such as a trustee who manages a philanthropic organization.
A philanthropist may not always find universal approval for his/her deeds. Common accusations include supporting an iniquitous cause (such as funding art instead of fighting world hunger) or having selfish motivation at heart (such as avoiding taxes or attaining personal fame).
So I would say that a philanthropist may be a humanitarian, provided they work or donate toward a cause which helps humanity as a whole.
If you ask me, socialism is less direct. Socialism is an operating system for society. It is basically when the richer (not the truly rich, as they would not exist in a purely socialist society) have to support the poorer (not the poor, as they would not exist for the same reason as the rich). This can be set up in a number of ways: through tax systems, social welfare, various subsidies, etc. Most of these operate on a macro-economic scale.
To me, seeing the principal difference between socialism and humanitarianism involves looking at the connotations of each. Socialism is not universally praised and sometimes despised; many people feel they should not support those who have not worked but are reaping the benefits of living in a socialist society. Another reason for socialism being despised can perhaps be that the "communist" enemies of capitalism were actually socialist (USSR was never a communist society).
Humanitarianism, however, is almost always ubiquitously praised. Who wouldn't want to help hurricane victims or the impoverished? Humanitarian aid is always extolled and of course appreciated.
Ultimately, socialism is more of an operating system for societies (one would be hard-pressed to call an act a "socialistic" one) whereas humanitarianism has more to do with direct acts (e.g. humanitarian aid) or laws that govern ways of conduct (e.g. laws in respect to the humane treatment of prisoners of war). The difference I guess lies in that socialism is more associated with the inner functioning of states whereas humanitarianism is how states act either intranationally or internationally (e.g. many nations sending aid to the countries and victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake).
In the end, every humanitarian act is socialistic; but not everything that is socialist can be considered humanitarian (since some people may be deprived of what they rightfully deserve).
What does everyone think?