Charity (practice)

A philosophical critique of charity can be found in Oscar Wilde's essay The Soul of Man Under Socialism, where he calls it "a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution . . . usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over [the poor's] private lives", as well as a remedy that prolongs the "disease" of poverty, rather than curing it.[14] Wilde's thoughts are cited with approval by Slavoj Žižek, and the Slovenian thinker adds his description of the effect of charity on the charitable:

When, confronted with the starving child, we are told: "For the price of a couple of cappuccinos, you can save her life!", the true message is: "For the price of a couple of cappuccinos, you can continue in your ignorant and pleasurable life, not only not feeling any guilt, but even feeling good for having participated in the struggle against suffering!"

— Slavoj Žižek (2010). Living in the End Times. Verso. p. 117.

Friedrich Engels, in his 1845 treatise on the condition of the working class in England, points out that charitable giving, whether by governments or individuals, is often seen by the givers as a means to conceal suffering that is unpleasant to see. Engels quotes from a letter to the editor of an English newspaper who complains that

streets are haunted by swarms of beggars, who try to awaken the pity of the passers-by in a most shameless and annoying manner, by exposing their tattered clothing, sickly aspect, and disgusting wounds and deformities. I should think that when one not only pays the poor-rate, but also contributes largely to the charitable institutions, one had done enough to earn a right to be spared such disagreeable and impertinent molestations.

The English bourgeoisie, Engels concludes,

is charitable out of self-interest; it gives nothing outright, but regards its gifts as a business matter, makes a bargain with the poor, saying: "If I spend this much upon benevolent institutions, I thereby purchase the right not to be troubled any further, and you are bound thereby to stay in your dusky holes and not to irritate my tender nerves by exposing your misery. You shall despair as before, but you shall despair unseen, this I require, this I purchase with my subscription of twenty pounds for the infirmary!" It is infamous, this charity of a Christian bourgeois![15]

The Institute of Economic Affairs published a report in 2012 called "Sock Puppets: How the government lobbies itself and why", which criticised the phenomenon of governments funding charities which then lobby the government for changes which the government wanted all along.[16]

Increasing awareness of poverty and food insecurity has led to debates among scholars about the Needs-Based versus the Rights-Based Approach. The Needs-Based approach solely provides recipients what they need, not expecting any action in response.[17] Examples of needs-based approaches include charitable giving, philanthropy, and other private investments. A Rights-Based approach, on the other hand, includes participation from both ends, with the recipients being active influences on policies. Politically, a Rights-Based approach would be illustrated in policies of income redistribution, wage floors, and cash subsidies. Mariana Chilton, in the American Journal of Public Health, suggests that current government policies reflect the Needs-Based Approach. Chilton argues this leads to a misconception that charity is the cure for basic needs insecurity.[17] This misconception drives the government to avoid welfare reform and instead to rely on charitable organizations and philanthropists. Amelia Barwise of the American Journal of Public Health supports Chilton’s argument by describing the consequences of philanthropy.[18] Using an example of Michael Bloomberg’s donation of $1.8 billion to Johns Hopkins University for student debts, Barwise questions the most effective use for this money. She lists one motivation of philanthropy as to avoid paying federal taxes, so the donor may be recognized for their generosity and send their earned money to organizations they are passionate about. Barwise therefore implies that Bloomberg’s actions resemble this reason, since he has saved $600 million in federal taxes and donated the money to his alma mater. Furthermore, this non-politicized idea of philanthropy and charitable giving is linked to the government’s approach to poverty. Barwise discusses that Americans have an innate distrust of the government, causing them to favor private and de-politicized actions such as charity. Her research finds consequences of philanthropic actions and how the money can be used more effectively.[18] First, Barwise states that since philanthropy allows for tax evasion, this decreases opportunities for welfare policies that would support all low-income workers. Furthermore, philanthropy can diminish the institution’s mission and give more power and influence to the donor.[18]

Acknowledging these consequences of philanthropy and the diminishing of public funding, Mariana Chilton offers solutions to the rights-based approach.[17] Chilton argues that the government should adopt a more rights-based approach to include more people in their policies and significantly improve basic needs insecurity. She calls for government accountability, an increase of transparency, an increase of public participation, and the acknowledgement of vulnerability and discrimination caused by current policies. She argues for increased federal legislation that provides social safety nets through entitlement programs, recognizing SNAP as a small example. Chilton concludes with a list of four strategies to a national plan: 1) increase monitoring system to assess threats to food insecurity, 2) improve national, state, and local coordination, 3) improve accountability, and 4) utilize public participation to help construct policies.[17]

In medieval Europe during the 12th and 13th centuries, Latin Christendom underwent a charitable revolution.[19] Rich patrons founded many leprosaria and hospitals for the sick and poor. New confraternities and religious orders emerged with the primary mission of engaging in intensive charitable work. Historians debate the causes. Some argue that this movement was spurred by economic and material forces, as well as a burgeoning urban culture. Other scholars argue that developments in spirituality and devotional culture were central. For still other scholars, medieval charity was primarily a way to elevate one's social status and affirm existing hierarchies of power.[20]

Sandstone vestige of a Jewish gravestone depicting a Tzedakah box (pushke). Jewish cemetery in Otwock (Karczew-Anielin), Poland.

In Judaism, tzedakah—a Hebrew term literally meaning righteousness but commonly used to signify charity[21]—refers to the religious obligation to do what is right and just.[22] Because it is commanded by the Torah and not voluntary, the practice is not technically an act of charity; such a concept is virtually nonexistent in Jewish tradition. Jews give tzedakah, which can take the form of money, time and resources to the needy, out of "righteousness" and "justice" rather than benevolence, generosity, or charitableness.[22] The Torah requires that 10 percent of a Jew's income be allotted to righteous deeds or causes, regardless if the receiving party is rich or poor.

In Islam there are two methods of charity.

One called Zakat, the other is called Sadaqa.

Zakat is one of the five pillars upon which the Muslim religion is based, where 2.5% of one's saving is compulsory to be given as Zakat per Islamic calendar year, provided that the saving is beyond the threshold limit, called Nisab, usually determined by the religious authority.

Sadaqa is voluntary charity or contribution. Sadaqa can be given using money, personal items, time or other resources. There is no minimum or maximum requirement for Sadaqa. Even smiling to other people is considered a Sadaqa.[23]

The practice of charity is called Dāna or Daana in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. It is the virtue of generosity or giving.[24][25] Dāna has been defined in traditional texts, state Krishnan and Manoj,[26] as “any action of relinquishing the ownership of what one considered or identified as one's own, and investing the same in a recipient without expecting anything in return”. Karna, Mahabali and Harishchandra are heroes also known for giving charity.

The earliest known discussion of charity as a virtuous practice, in Indian texts, is in Rigveda.[27][28] According to other ancient texts of Hinduism, dāna can take the form of feeding or giving to an individual in distress or need.[29] It can also take the form of philanthropic public projects that empower and help many.[30][31][32]

Dāna leads to one of the perfections (pāramitā). This can be characterized by unattached and unconditional generosity, giving and letting go.[33]

Historical records, such as those by the Persian historian Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī who visited India in early 11th century, suggest dāna has been an ancient and medieval era practice among Indian religions.[34][35]

Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement that uses evidence and reasoning to determine the most effective ways to benefit others.[36] Effective altruism encourages individuals to consider all causes and actions and to act in the way that brings about the greatest positive impact, based upon their values.[37] It is the broad, evidence-based and cause-neutral approach that distinguishes effective altruism from traditional altruism or charity.[38] Effective altruism is part of the larger movement towards evidence-based practices.

While a substantial proportion of effective altruists have focused on the nonprofit sector, the philosophy of effective altruism applies more broadly to prioritizing the scientific projects, companies, and policy initiatives which can be estimated to save lives, help people, or otherwise have the biggest benefit.[39] People associated with the movement include philosopher Peter Singer,[40] Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz,[41] Cari Tuna,[42] Ben Delo,[43] Oxford-based researchers William MacAskill[44] and Toby Ord,[45] professional poker player Liv Boeree,[46][47] and writer Jacy Reese Anthis.[48]