| One can’t eat a restored cathedral, that’s true, but if we were to address all social and environmental ills before we pay attention to the arts, how culturally arid society would be. The arts lifts the spirit, gives it sustenance, often for little or no money. But it needs to exist in the first place. |  Jennifer Chen Editor |
 Denise Kok Associate Editor | Is a humanitarian crisis more deserving of hundred-million-dollar donations than a historical monument that went down in flames? Perhaps. Do philanthropists have to defend their decision to support one cause over another? No. The act of giving is personal and the giver is free to elect their beneficiary. |
| Not saying that Notre Dame shouldn’t be eventually rebuilt, but part of the hundreds of millions in euros so readily given could have been channelled towards more humanitarian causes, even before the fire. It’s easy to react emotionally to tragedy, but changing statistics is the real challenge. |  Weets Goh Writer |
(Previously debated: How much are you willing to pay for chicken rice?)
 Lynette KohWatches & Fashion Editor | Both are equally important: while I found it a bit over-the-top that France’s richest pledged hundreds of millions to the restoration of the fire-damaged Notre Dame within two days, it would be nice to see some of that regard for our cultural history – not just sparkling new edifices – here on our shores. |
 Adeline Wong | Ideally, funds should be channelled towards urgent causes, but the most urgent cause is often the most heart-stopping image. Heritage monuments need funding, but the overwhelming amount of euros pledged singularly to Notre Dame is seemingly ignorant of the plight of other historical buildings there requiring restoration – what more the poor and needy. Philanthropy is a choice, with very unequal results. |
(Previously debated: Should one call out bad behaviour on social media?)
Photo by Cassie Gallegos on Unsplash
