A problem is that when a rich individual or a for-profit corporation donates money or otherwise engages in charity, there's a very loud contingent of writers who will respond that the individual or corporation should've never been able to accumulate such money, that charity is a scam to protect the rich, and what we should do is raise taxes on everyone to provide these things for everyone via government.
It's important to understand that noblesse oblige was transactional: it staved off the masses from revolting and even generated some good. When charity puts a target on your back, folks won't engage in charity.
As with so many other issues in the modern climate, all of that hinges on people assuming that the opinions of some wonk or columnist scold really matters to the majority of people. And refraining from simply because of fear of finger-wagging from scolds, is cowardice.
I don't think it's an assumption at all; the opinions of the masses are shaped in large part by the media they consume. While few might read Salon or the New Yorker, it is passed around elite circles and it makes its way to CNN and MSNBC as well as reality shows and TikTok influencers.
They don't fear scolds; they fear pitchforks and, more realistically, _taxes_. You can call it cowardice but it's entirely rational.
It's important to understand that noblesse oblige was transactional: it staved off the masses from revolting and even generated some good. When charity puts a target on your back, folks won't engage in charity.