Why Charity Is Fruitful

...

In addition to biological, psychological and social needs, there exists the moral needs of the individual which appeal to “requirements for fulfilling, fostering or nurturing one’s moral nature” (Hartsock and Roark, 2014). A moral nature includes “doing what one ought to do”. All of us have responsibilities of supporting other agents in fulfilling their moral obligations. Thus the horizons of reciprocity in charity are extended to include the exchange of moral values. Let’s take a simple example: “Joe has promised to drive his mother to the airport; his car breaks down unexpectedly, and he is unable to do so. We assume he has no other means of driving his mother to the airport. His friend Tom offers to lend Joe his car and helps Joe fulfill his promise to his mother. Therefore, Tom is being “morally charitable”. Tom is not only helping Joe’s mother get to the airport, but he is also supporting Joe’s need to keep his promise to his mother.” Furthermore, moral duties can take some sort of hierarchies in which one duty is prioritized over the other. For example, one has promised his mother to meet her for dinner, but on the way he notices a traffic accident and can aid a seriously injured person; he cannot do both. In this case, the duty of stopping aside to help the injured beats the duty of keeping his promise (Hartsock and Roark 2014).That’s how people engage in some sorts of exchange that are driven by moral commitments, and what distinguishes moral needs from the biological and social needs is that “people do not always want to do what they ought to do”. We give the example of Carla, who “ought to visit her ailing grandmother, but does not wish to do so. She is actively making excuses: she lost her license, she does not have bus fare, etc… Carla is in moral need, but she does not want that need satisfied.” One could help her meet her moral needs and make her more enthusiastic about fulfilling her obligation to visit her grandmother. That’s when moral charity “positively intervenes on the beneficiary’s moral environment” (Hartsock and Roark 2014).

In conclusion, charity devoted to meeting people’s biological and social needs leaves a positive impact on their lives. Not only does it satisfy their needs of eating and drinking, but also it provides a spiritual value that can let them become the leaders of tomorrow. Charity is not always about the action of donating money, but about how much the recipients will benefit when they become capable of achieving their social goals after financial support. The scope of charity is wider; it can include aiding others in performing their moral responsibilities, and that’s how charity is considered as a one-way form of generalized reciprocity that does not demand anything in return.

References:

- Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. "Reciprocity." In What Is Anthropology? (Anthropology, Culture, and Society). London: Pluto, 2004. 89+91. Print

- Cronk, Lee. “Reciprocity and The Power of Giving” (Economic Systems). New York. 10007. Print

- Conradson, David. 2008. "Expressions Of Charity And Action Towards Justice: Faith-Based Welfare Provision In Urban New Zealand". Urban Studies 45 (10): 2117-2141. doi:10.1177/0042098008094876.

- Hartsock, Michael, and Eric Roark. 2014. "Moral Charity". The Journal Of Value Inquiry 49 (1-2): 237-245. doi:10.1007/s10790-014-9473-6.