The Nature and Proper Role of Charity

Charity is a term which is often thrown around in modern society.  It is used as a rallying cry, as a basis for legislature, and, worse, as a form of blackmail.  Yet, despite the widespread use of the term, it is rarely defined.  Those who employ it seem content to let it retain a sort of amorphous, ephemeral quality.  So, to shed light on a kind of pervasive darkness, it is appropriate to begin here with a definition, and, more important, to use the definition which is in actual context to the topic.  The Webster’s New World Dictionary defines charity as follows: “A giving of help to those in need,” (73).  So there remains no confusion, it defines give, variously, in the following, contextually relevant, ways:  “1. to hand over as a present.  2. to hand over; deliver: as, he gave the boy his bag.  3. To pay, as money,” (184).   It might be of benefit to define present, but the relevant issue at hand has been established.  Charity can be defined as, handing over, as a present, help, in some form, to those in need. 

Having defined, specifically, neither amorphously, nor ephemerally, charity, it is now possible to discuss the nature of charity.  All of the above definitions have a single common factor of relevance.  Each of them rests on a principle of volition.  A present is never required, but merely a convention.  It is something which an individual chooses to offer another individual or institution.  To pay for something is a choice.  It implies some form of bill or legal obligation.  There are negative consequences to failing to pay for something; yet, the individual can make the choice to suffer those negative consequences.  One can choose not to hand a bag over to a porter, though utilizing the service of a porter can reduce one’s effort.  Having established the preceding, it is within reason to say that the nature of charity rests on a principle of volition.  A person is making a choice to offer something at their disposal to someone or some group in need.
Now comes the question of what is need?  The term, connotatively, is used in such subjective ways that it virtually ceases to have meaning.  There are those who believe that they need cable television, or that they need a plasma television the size of their living room wall, or that they need a Mercedes-Benz.  Clearly, a person’s survival does not rest on any such items or services, so it is probably appropriate to have a more restrictive meaning of need than simple desire for what can be referred to as the finer things in life.  For the purposes of this essay, “in need” will refer then to those who are lacking those items which ensure survival and, through no reasonable fault of their own, can not be expected to obtain such items.