Last month, billionaire Genshiro Kawamoto, a Japanese real estate mogul and billionaire, opened three of his multi-million dollar homes in Hawaii to three homeless families of Native Hawaiian descent. The families can live there rent-free, but paying utilities, for ten years.
Some people have criticized Kawamoto’s gesture as being empty and impractical: how will the families pay for their bills? If this billionaire really wanted to help the homeless, he’d build affordable housing or fund programs that help people stay off the streets. One commenter on the article says, “This is just a sick P.R. move.” It’s possible. Kawamoto has a bumpy ethical track record: in 2002, he evicted 27 Oahu tenants with 30 days’ notice because he wanted to catch the rising housing prices.
His supporters disagree, saying that a good deed is a good deed, no matter what the motivations.
So what do you think? Does a good deed have to have good intentions, or does it stand on its own as an act?
Photo Credit: AP
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 25th, 2007 at 8:00 am and is filed under In The News, Class. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
There is currently one response
This is a question i’ve asked myself many times. Last week, as a matter of fact. Michael Vick, a Virginia Tech alum, gave $10K to the families. My immediate reaction was, “Only $10K?” The guy makes that much during a timeout.
But he didn’t have to do anything.
Neither did this guy. And if the homeless people don’t like his offer, they don’t have to accept it.
Whatever motives he or Vick or politicians or celebrities may have, doing any amount of good for whatever reason is better than doing something evil. or doing nothing at all.
Leave a reply
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed