Philanthropic Efforts From Companies Like TOMS and Charities like Livestrong Should Not Exist.

What you're addressing is precisely the problem here, among others of course. And I'm surprised you're more afraid of my "conspiracy theoristic" view of thinking, because I'm not making it up, these companies admit what they're doing, wholeheartedly in fact. But more on that later. To address what you said: Why shouldn't a company be able to improve its reputation? That misses the point of this debate entirely. If the question is aimed at what the company is doing for its own self-interests, and yes reputation is nothing but a self-interest, then it automatically cannot be of use in charity if it is a priority. Another way to more simply put my answer to that: their reputation, and building of it, has no bearing on this discussion. Another point: "They are helping people." How are they helping people exactly? You haven't given me any examples. It would be to shallow of me to mention companies that "seem" like they are aimed at doing good. Let's mention a different company, like Starbucks for example. They have a big emphasis on "good coffee karma", whatever that means. Underneath that "karma" idea is that they try "their best" to provide coffee that is sustainable and is considered fair trade. On the surface that isn't such a bad thing, I am a major supporter of free trade practices. HOWEVER, they advocate free trade practices as long as Starbucks is the vehicle. Their free trade, sustainable, and "good karma" practices are in reality aimed at increased profits, and bettering their own company, and as you mentioned before boosting reputation. You make another point: "People can just but [sic] from another, cheaper company and then donate to a charity." Realistically, do you think that actually happens? Let's just think about it for a moment, a person is going to not buy something from say, TOMS, and they are looking for something cheaper, from another company. That is very common. Why are they looking for something cheaper from someone else? Because they are trying to save money. Now, let's add on that other bit you mentioned "and then donate to a charity". If people are seeking to save money, why would they take the money they saved and donate it it a charity? Realistically, in this situation, they wouldn't. Why? Because they are looking to save money. If they are looking to donate to a charity, the system is already in place, they can buy something a touch more expensive because what they are spending will go into a charitable effort. I think you miss my point entirely when you say I have a "conspiracy theoristic" way of thinking. I am not against charity or philanthropy whatsoever. But what companies actually "might JUST want to help someone". That would go against their existence as a company. A company's aim is to create a business that would generate a revenue for the interests of its creators and shareholders. If it JUST wanted to help someone, that would be against their own interests. You also miss my point when I say what these companies are doing are wrong. The aim in my argument is not to do away with charity, but to do away with the idea that one can put a face on capitalism, which is exactly what companies like Starbucks and TOMS are doing. They perpetuate the idea of "I can justify my needless materialism as long as I know that a little of what I'm spending will go to some sort of charity". Realistically, will that contribution be enough to really make a difference? Probably not. Why? Because the system of capitalism, in essence, gives rise to the situations that allow for poverty here in the United States and everywhere else in the world. To put it in other words it is like having a man that will inevitable die lying in a hospital bed with an I.V. in his arm that would just barely keep him alive, but in the worst conditions. The answer then, in my opinion, is to have a radical shift in our way of thinking of charity and philanthropy. First it consists of doing away with this notion of "cultural capitalism", and to adopt and implement a more rigorous theory of emancipate philosophy to provide an answer. What I mean by that is to cause a break in the capitalistic, and democratic (the political/governmental system not the political party) systems that allows for the presence of charity in the first place. People need to abolish current systems and practices in such a way that to continue with this new emancipate theory that it does not allow for the case of poverty and etc. to arise.