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.
Such people will exist in any society. A child, for example, due to the lack of physical development and the laws of our nation, cannot support him or herself. Children do not have the option to get a job or opt out of public education. A child therefore relies upon adults to supply those things which survival requires: food, clothing, and shelter. Someone born with organic dysfunctions, such as degenerative diseases like Multiple Sclerosis or mental conditions, like severe autism, will often find themselves incapable to meet the requirements, be they physical or interpersonal, of self-support. Or a more general example might be when an entire industry collapses, like the dotcom implosion in the nineties, or the major employer in a particular area closes its doors. A last example would be those who are employed by a company that uses illegal or destructive policies which are not visible to the rank and file worker. The Arthur-Anderson/Enron business disaster would be an appropriate example of such an instance. Those who are employed cannot be expected to consistently foresee such events. They do have an obligation to seek gainful employment after such an event, but finding another job, particularly when a significant number of other people in the same geographic area, with a similar skill set, are doing the same, can take time. These would be examples of those who lack fault, be it in the long or short term, for being unable to obtain those requirements of survival.
However, many of those to whom charity is bestowed on, at the expense of those who do perform the necessary acts to support themselves, do not fall into such categories. Those who engage in irresponsible sexual behaviors when highly effective forms of birth control are readily available, volitionally leave otherwise gainful employment without financial planning for it or finding a new job ahead of time, or simple laziness are not fault free categories. Irresponsibility is avoidable and sloth is not debilitative. Such persons may be in need, in a sense, but they are not in need in the same way that a person who is struck down by leukemia is in need. Such people make choices which bring about their situations. When health is stolen by something completely outside of an individual’s power to avoid, or age precludes it, or employment is yanked out from beneath someone, such as when a corporation announces the closing a of plant two weeks before it does so or engages in illegal and destructive business practices, the individual has not made choices which directly led to their situations. Those within what can be called the “fault-free” categories are required to rely on the charity of others. They have no other choice.
