Friday, January 20, 2012

Objections to charity

Ta-Wan


Are these genuine reasons not to offer charity?

1. Giving food to homeless beggars. If these people have begged some money then they may spend this on intoxicants or on food. If food is provided they will surely intoxicate.

2. Giving aid to those oppressed by governmental failure. If these people are able to survive oppression via aid then isn't the aid only supporting the oppression?

Both of these issues came up in a conversation yesterday and split the crowd in half.

You can check out Ta-Wan's other musings here.

6 comments:

  1. What an interesting pair of questions, I propose an answer.

    With regards to whether one should give food to homeless beggars, I think a prenotion that giving them money which leads to intoxication presents two classical points of view. In terms of utilitarianism, or the idea that one should perform actions which benefit everybody, could suggest that you might worsen the circumstances which made or continue to make them homeless. From a humanist point of view though, despite this issue, it could be said the circumstances are not definite and to deny him money would be to equally deny him food.
    From a taoist perspective, if that could be so said, I think that a person ought to allow nature to take its course. If giving him money leads to intoxication and likely premature death or in fact contributed to eventual recovery, then this is the inevitable course - however, such would have been the way it is regardless of intervention.

    With regards to government failure, the issue is that one group of people is more powerful on the issue than another group, or the majority. In this instance, one ought to contribute to the rebalancing of power, and not specifically the power of one group, however if contributing aid is necessary to do this, then I propose it is just to do so.

    Let me know your thoughts,

    White Tiger.

    http://zionseye.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oddly enough, I had just been reading this in the Wen-tzu series -

    "Those who practice humaneness deliberately always calculate it in terms of sorrow and happiness, those who practice justice deliberately always understand it in terms of taking and giving."

    It's better not to be calculating a specific outcome in offering help? We might hope that our contributions will be used wisely and not cause more grief, but 'What will be, will be'?

    Deb

    http://ramblingtaoist.blogspot.com/2010/02/wen-tzu-verse-155-part-i.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. monetary contributions never solve the underlying issues, it's just that people value money so highly, that if they choose to depart it without gaining anything in return, then that's considered charitable

    ReplyDelete
  4. My husband like to tell the story of when in some Texas metropolis, a raggedy old cowboy in a corduroy suit and western hat approached him for spare change. He handed him what he thought was a buck; turned out it was a ten. They had a moment of struggle over the money. The cowboy said, "Wow, now I can buy two bottles." My husband let go. It's a good story, and ultimately, you need to put yourself in the boots of the cowboy to decide what you would/should do.

    (Aloha, Bai Hu!)

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Those that exercise humaneness intentionally usually determine this when it comes to sadness as well as joy, people who exercise rights intentionally usually realize this when it comes to getting as well as providing. inch.


    lol代练
    elo boost
    fifa15.mmo18.com
    fifa 15 coins

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you expect anything at all from your act of charity then you are simply 'trading'.
    If your act of charity, in and of itself, condemns a person or group of people to certain (calculated) outcomes, don't do it.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.