The Nature and Proper Role of Charity

If the individual is not swayed by either collectivism or Kantian-Altruism, the charity can resort to one last form of manipulation to get the individual to hand over money.  They can turn to the Original Sin card and use plain guilt.  “One should consider those who are less fortunate than themselves,” is a popular phrase which appeals to this basic guilt.  It implies that it is only luck, or providence, that has allowed the person to achieve or acquire what they have and that it is only luck or providence that has created the situation in which those “less fortunate” persons find themselves.  Moreover, it is a phrase which suggests that the individual does not deserve what they have and, since they don’t deserve what they have, they need to make amends for having what they do.  This is the very essence of Original Sin: you bear guilt by virtue of the fact that you exist. 

To utter such a statement as, “One should consider those who are less fortunate than themselves,” takes such a stunning degree of ignorance or arrogance it is dumbfounding that it ever happens. That an element of luck can play a role in success is no secret.  However, the assumption that success is only the product of luck is pure ignorance.  Success, in anything, takes effort.  The degree of effort is relative, both to the talent and perception of the people involved, but it never effort-free.  Such ignorance, while horrifying, might be explainable through some gap or error in the education of the person saying it.  If such is the case, some measure of forgiveness might be in order, though absolutely no bending to the demands accompanying the ignorance.  Wrong ideas can never be corrected through indulgence of them.

  What is not forgivable is when that statement is made in arrogance.  To say such a thing in arrogance means that the person saying it realizes that it takes work to achieve something, but that they consider the work done to be of no value, of less value than their own, or simply insignificant next to the “need” of whatever group with which they happen to be concerned.  To take such a stance requires a belief that one has the right to pass the kind of judgments that one finds unacceptable from the person toward which that attitude is directed.  Were the individual being asked for money to say that they find the efforts of people who make up the group in “need” to be of no value, less value than their own, or simply irrelevant, he or she would be denounced as lacking compassion.  Yet those who make such demands feel perfectly comfortable doing so and are also perfectly comfortable trying to create guilt in perfect strangers.  On top of which, they hold that their actions are perfectly moral. 

How do collectivism, Kantian-Altruism, and simple guilt relate to charity?  Stated simply, they don’t.  Charity, as defined, is volitional and all three of the means that charity organizations use to try to collect money work to defy volition.  Each and every one tries to force the suspension of individual volition and replace it with obligation.  When someone or some group tries to force an individual to give them money against the better judgment and desire of the individual it is not charity.  It is blackmail.  That the pressure exerted is psychological or emotional, rather than physical pressure or the threat of it, and the money gathered is theoretically for some needy group are the only things that separate charities from the Mafia or, for that matter, a government.