What is charity?
Random Thoughts April 24th, 2008This is a question that I have studied in the past and it came up in conversation recently which got me thinking about it all over again… What exactly defines charity?
A dictionary definition would be something along the lines of ‘generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless’… But does that mean if you give something to people who are neither poor, ill or helpless you are not engaging in a charitable act?
Is the person gives money to a homeless guy with good intention and no agenda, expecting nothing at all in return; carrying out the same act as the rich politician donating a small portion of his wealth to charity with the hopes he will be receiving positive publicity in return? I would argue they are most likely providing similar benefits and both receiving something in return, whether or not it is obvious or material is of no consequence.
What about the billionaire donating thousands vs the homeless guy giving up his cardboard shelter for a night? It may seem that the thousands will go further than a cardboard shelter, but in theory I argue the shelter is worth more as it is a higher percentage of what the homeless person has. He is giving until it hurts, whereas the billionaire will hardly feel the thousands he ‘loses’.
I have read that there are seven levels of charity (source) the lowest being charity for personal gain, and the highest being completely anonymous charity to a person who is unknown and requires resources to establish more positive energy. After all, isn’t charity all about giving and not receiving in return? Doesn’t that mean to receive anything – even a good feeling about yourself, demean the act completely and reducing the level of goodness?
My personal belief is that any charity is better than nothing. I too believe that when you have the means to do something special, you should. Further more I would love to be the person that continually gives until it hurts – the only problem is that self infliction of pain doesn’t sit well with me…
Rayrays Altruism Challenge
Since we have discussed charity and giving, allow me to add a side note about altruism. Altruism is the act of giving without expecting anything in return (or the highest of the seven types of charity), but as I sit here staring at the screen replaying all the things I have done which I consider to be charitable, I cannot think of once instance that any of them could have had the potential to be altruistic. Can you? (If so write them to me below in a comment)
By the way - Be charitable and donate to your favourite philosophy blog…
May 11th, 2008 at 4:37 am
Altruistic i believe is the only sense of charity, people give sometimes to feel better about themselves or give so they can receive. But to be completely honest i can agree with you rayrays its rarely that u can think youve been charitable with also being altruistic, which shoudlnt exist. You might think that your being charitable but it really isnt if your receiveing anything back, such as a emotion that makes you feel good or allows u to sleep better at night, or knowing u will recieve a favor in return or even that you feel sorry for the person. But there are definatly times where there has been cases of charity with alturism which have gone down and i believe that if you are going to consider something as charitable it only really is if its also altruistic as well.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:58 am
I once pondered how I, a little man without much to give, can change the world for the best. Well, the term best is perspective based, and is only what I persevere as better. So does that mean I should give up and not do anything, know full well that everything I do is for a selfish act of moulding the world into what I believe it should be? No.
Real charity is in the intent given. If you give a man a dollar because you feel sorry for him, that is guilt not charity. If you give it to him because you believe it is the right thing, and purely for that reason, that is charity. There is a thin line between and I can truly say I have been given charity many time in my life.
I sponsor a child in some south American country,which I give $39 a month. That young child writes to me. He writes to me about his family, about his life of poverty. I give him a tiny amount of money, money which wouldn’t even cost me two hours of work, most of which I would spend talking to someone or surfing the internet.He would spend many more hours, using his vague understanding of English, to write me letters full of love. He is the person who is truly giving charity.
Who cares about the amount, Money isn’t real, it is just paper or plastic with numbers on it, it is the feeling that you give which truly gives power to the word charity. Next time you give a homeless man a dollar, give it to him with the intent to make his life better, not with the intent that you are doing him a favour. Love is the only thing that is truly worth giving.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Damn that was deep bro - well said. You smashed my challenge…
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:30 am
“It may seem that the thousands will go further than a cardboard shelter, but in theory I argue the shelter is worth more as it is a higher percentage of what the homeless person has. He is giving until it hurts, whereas the billionaire will hardly feel the thousands he ‘loses’.”
Isn’t it funny how that works out?
Million/billionaires donating thousands, where just as you said it barely puts a dent into their pockets. I honestly doubt they will lose sleep over such a deed.
Ever notice how the media portrays them as such generous people? Funnily enough, they would just claim some of it back on tax. How do you define charity within that? Personally, I label them ‘charitable’.
In regards to the homeless people, when you have very little, any little thing you have is BIG. I feel for these people, ain’t life a bitch.
May 1st, 2009 at 12:42 am
This is such an amazing website!! I really enjoyed this article although it got me thinking.
Does this ‘theory’ imply that people who are generous are giving less worthyily? Because if it is the amount of difficulty that giving causes you, then a genorous person is really not ‘giving’ that much (considering that a genorous person LOVES to give and does it frequently). If this theory is saying so, then I must say I am not a fan of it nor do I believe in it.
Also, I feel the author of this article is making an assumption that what a person gives in charity is actually going to benefit the people/person they give it to. What if the donation actually harms the recipient? Is that still considered charity?
All in all I enjoyed this article! Please write more!
-Loulou
May 1st, 2009 at 12:54 am
Hi Loulou,
Thanks for your comments!
In regards to your first comment, after thinking about this a lot and reading peoples comments, I feel giving is more an act of intent and the worth of something that is being given to the person who is giving it! So generous people would rank very highly on this theories scale as long as they are giving with wholesome intent and not being tight assed with their donations - giving to help.
With your second comment, you are right, I was making an assumption. This is a blog. It would be tedious to consider every possibility and outcome when creating an article about my own thoughts and to be honest with you, if I made no assumptions, the article may end up being quite pointless!
I assume, for the sake of the article, that when someone gives something - it is not detrimental to the recipient. Unless they are giving someone a bomb, in which case I would label the act terrorism rather than charity!!
Hope that clears stuff up a bit for you!!
-Rayray