Charity: A Consideration of Responsibility

Every day, at least everyday the physical mail arrives, our household receives as many as a half
dozen (and at times more) mail solicitations from charitable organizations. A similar stream of
requests comes to us via Email.
While some might consider this a nuisance, or a waste, or even harassment, by the charities, I
decidedly do not. I consider the inflow reasonable, and the charities' efforts to solicit as legitimate,
and the imposition on me not a nuisance, but to the contrary a challenge. Not a challenge in a sense
of how to handle or dispose of the mail, or how to stem the flow, but a challenge as to how to
respond in an ethically responsible and appropriate manner.
So, given a decision to not dismiss, or throw out, or simply ignore the incoming wave, what is the
proper action? Should I give, and how much? Now our household, as might be considered typical,
earns sufficient income to cover necessities and some amenities, but we are not living in large
luxury. We own standard brand (Chevy, Pontiac) cars, live in a modest single family home, consider
Saturday evening at the local pizza parlor as eating out, and turn down the heat to keep the utility
bills affordable.
Contributing thus falls within our means, but not without trade-offs, and even sacrifice.
So should we give? And how much? Let's consider (and dismiss) some initial concerns, concerns
which could otherwise deflect, diminish or even remove an obligation to donate.sheonty sultan
financial analyst
The Legitimacy and Efficiency of Charities - Stories surface, more often than desirable, highlighting
unscrupulous individuals who prey on sympathy and use sham charity websites to collect
contributions but then keep the donations. Other stories uncover less than competent actions by
charities, for example excessive salaries, inappropriate marketing costs, lack of oversight. With this,
then, why give?
While striking, these stories, as I scan the situation, represent outliers. The stories rate as news due
to the very fact that they represent the atypical. Do I believe mainline charities, like Salvation Army,
or Catholic Charities, or Doctors without Borders, do I believe them so inefficient or corrupt to
justify my not giving? No. Rather, the response, if I and anyone have concerns about a charity, is to
research the charity, to check and find those that are worthy, and not to simply cast one's obligation
aside.
Government and Business Role - Some may argue that government (by its programs), or business
(through its contributions and community service), should handle charity needs and issues.
Government and business have resources beyond any that I or any one individual can garner.
My look again says I can not use this argument to side step my involvement. Government needs
taxes, plus political consensus, both uncertain, to run social and charity programs, and businesses
simply are not sufficiently in the business of charity to expect them to carry the whole weight.
Deserving of our Amenities - Most individuals with a modest but comfortable status achieved that
through sacrifice, and scholastic effort, and hard work, and daily discipline. We thus should not, and
do not need to, feel guilt as we reasonably reward ourselves, and our households, with amenities.

And the term amenities doesn't imply decadence Amenities often include positive and admirable
items, i.e. instructional summer camps, travel to educational places, purchase of healthy food, a
family outing at an afternoon baseball game.
However, while we earned our amenities, in a broader sense we did not earn our stature at birth.
Most financially sufficient individuals and families likely have had the good fortune to be born into
an economically productive setting, with the opportunity for education, and the freedom to pursue
and find employment and advancement.
If we have that good fortune, if we were born into free, safe and relatively prosperous conditions,
few of us would change our stature at birth to have been born in the dictatorship of North Korea, or
a slum in India, or a war-ravaged city in the Middle East, or doctorless village in Africa, or a
decaying municipality in Siberia, or, since the Western world isn't perfect, an impoverished
neighborhood in the U.S., or a cold, wind-swept nomadic steppe in South America. Certainly much of
any success comes from our own efforts. But much of it also comes from the luck of the draw on the
stature into which we were born.
Economic Dislocation - Isn't giving a zero sum game? Diverting spending from luxury items (e.g.
designer sunglasses, drinks at a fine lounge), or even making sacrifices (fasting a meal), to give to
charity, creates economic ripples. As we convert spending to charities, we reduce spending, and
incrementally employment, in companies and firms providing the items forgone. And the ripples
don't affect just the wealthy. The employment ripples impact what might be considered deserving
individuals, e.g. students paying their way through college, pensioners depending on dividends,
inner city youth working hard, average income individuals providing for families.
However, in reality, for good or bad, every purchasing decision, not just those involving charity
donations, creates employment ripples, creates winners and losers. A trip to the ball game verses a
trip to the theme park, a purchase at a local deli verses a purchase at a large grocery, clothes made
in Malaysia verses clothes made in Vietnam - every purchasing decision implicitly decides a winner
and a loser, generates employment for some and reduces it for others.
So this issue, of purchasing decisions shifting employment patterns, this issue extends over the
whole economy. How can it be handled? In an overarching way, government and social structures
must create fluidity and freedom in employment so individuals can move (relatively) smoothly
between firms, locations and sectors. This public policy issue, of dislocation of employment due to
economic shifts, looms large, but in the end, should not, and more critically, can not, be solved by
failing to donate.
So donations to charities shift employment, not reduce it. Does employment in the charity sector
provide substantial work? I would say yes. Take one example, City Harvest New York. City Harvest
collects otherwise surplus food, to distribute to needy. To accomplish this, the charity employs truck
drivers, dispatchers, outreach personnel, program managers, research analysts, and on and on.
These are skilled positions, in the New York City urban boundaries, doing meaningful work, offering
strong careers. In many cases, for a typical city individual, these positions would represent a step up
from fast food and retail clerk.
Culpability and Means - Though a fine line exists here, charity might best be considered generosity,
a positive and voluntary expression of the heart, and not so much on obligation which weighs on the
mind as guilt. The normal and typical individual did not cause the conditions or situations requiring
charity. And the normal and typical individual doesn't possess excessive, or even significant, wealth
from which to donate.

So, given that the typical individual lacks culpability for the ills of the world, and similarly lacks the
means to individually address them, one could argue we are not duty bound. We can decide to be
generous, or not, with no compulsion, with no obligation, with no guilt if we discard the incoming
solicitations.
By a small margin, I judge otherwise. When I compare the utility of the last dollar I might spend on
myself, to the utility of food for a hungry child, or medicine for a dying patient, or a habitat for a
dying species, I can not conclude charity rates only as discretionary generosity, a nice thing to do,
something to consider, possibly, in my free time. The disparity between the minor incremental
benefit I receive from the last dollar spent on myself, and the large and possibly life-saving benefit
which another would receive from a donated dollar, stands as so large that I conclude that I in
particular, and individuals in general, have an obligation to give.
Blameworthiness of Poor - But while our lack of culpability and means may not mitigate our
responsibility, do not the poor and needy possess some accountability. Do they not have some
responsibility for their status, and to improve that status? Do not the poor bear some level of blame
themselves?
In cases, yes. But it is disingenuous to dismiss our moral obligation based on the proportion of cases,
or the extent in any individual case, where the poor may be at fault. In many, if not most, situations
little or no blameworthiness exists. The hungry child, the rare disease sufferer, the flood victim, the
disabled war veteran, the cancer patient, the inner-city crime victim, the disabled from birth, the
drought-stricken third-world farmer, the born blind or disfigured, the battered child, the mentally
retarded, the war-ravaged mother - can we really attribute sufficient blame to these individuals to
justify our not giving.
Might others be blameworthy? Yes. Governments, corporations, international institutions, family
members, social agencies - these organizations and individuals might, and likely do, bear some
responsibility for putting the poor and needy in their condition, or for not getting them out of their
condition. But we have already argued that government needs taxes and a consensus (both
uncertain) to execute programs, and corporations are not sufficiently in the business of charity. And
we can stand morally indignant at those who should help don't, but such resentfulness doesn't
correct the situation. The needy, mostly blameless, still need help and care. We can lobby and
pressure organizations to perform better, but in the meantime the needy require our donations.
Concerns Dismissed, Concerns to Weigh - So on balance, in this author's view, a strict obligation
exists towards charity. To turn a blind eye to charity, to discard the incoming mail, rates as an
ethical impropriety. The needs of charity rate so high that I must recognize a deep obligation to
donate, and my survey of counter considerations - just covered above - leaves me with no logic to
offset, or negate, or soften that conclusion.
If one has an obligation to charity, to what extent should one give? A few dollars? A certain
percentage? The amounts left after normal monthly spending? Our discussion framework here is
ethics, so I will frame the answer in ethical terms. The extent of our obligation extends to the point
where another obligation of equal weight surfaces.
Primary Family Duty - If a person should give up to an equal consideration, one could judge one's
obligation extends to giving essentially every dollar to charity, and to live an ascetic life, keeping
only minor amounts for bare subsistence. The needs for charity tower so large, and the needs of
unfortunate individuals stand as so compelling, that a greater need than one's own essentially
always exists, down to the point of one's subsistence.

This interpretation might be considered to have good company. The preaching of at least one great
figure, Christ, could be construed to indicate the same.
Now, in practice few give to such an extreme. That few do stems in part to the sacrifice such an
extreme scenario entails. That few do also stems in part from not everyone agreeing, in good faith,
with the conclusion that one has an obligation to give.
But would those be the only reasons? Given one agrees with the conclusions above, and one has a
will and sacrifice to give, does a significant, compelling, morally worthy obligation of equal weight
exist?
Yes. That obligation provides an implicit but critical foundation of society. That obligation brings
order to our daily list of concerns. Absent that obligation, one could be overwhelmed by the needs of
mankind.
What is that obligation of equal weight? That obligation stands among the highest, if not the highest,
of one's obligation, and that is the obligation to care for the immediate family.
Individuals work two and three jobs to care for family. Individuals spend nights in hospitals beside
sick members of family. Individuals worry to distraction when family members come home late.
Individuals stop what they are doing to console, or comfort, or assist, a family member. Daily, we
check on the needs of family, and respond, feel obliged to respond.
We do not, daily, go down the street, in normal situations, and check the needs of the several dozen
families in our block or apartment. Certainly we check on an elderly neighbor, or a family with a sick
member, but we have an expectation, a strong one, that just as we must care for our family, others
will care for their family, to the extent of their means. I would claim that as one of the most
fundamental bedrocks of social order, i.e. that family units provide for the needs of the vast and
great majority of individuals.
Now our concern for family arises does not arise primarily from our engaging in deep ethical
reflections. Our concern for family arises from our natural and normal love for our family members,
and our deep and emotional concern and attachment to them, reinforced in cases by our
commitment to religious and church teachings.
But that we execute our primary responsibility from non-philosophical motivations does not lessen
that the ethical principle exists.
Now, as mentioned earlier, this family-centric ethic provides a linchpin for our social structure. The
vast majority of individuals exist within a family, and thus the family-centric ethic provides a
ubiquitous, practical, and strongly effective (but not perfect, which in part is why there are needy)
means to care for the needs of a significant percentage of mankind. Absent a family-centric ethic, a
chaos would develop, where we would feel guilt to help all equally, or no guilt to help anybody, and
in which no accepted or common hierarchy of obligation existed. The result? A flawed social
structure with no organization or consistency in how needs are met. Civilization would like not have
developed absent a family-centric ethic.
Thus, obligation to family, to those specific individuals to whom we are related, to feed, cloth,
comfort and support our family, surpasses obligation to charity, to those general individuals in need.
I doubt few would disagree. But obligation to family itself involves a hierarchy of requirements.
Basic food, shelter, and clothing rate as overwhelming obligations, but a second handbag, or a

slightly large TV, or fashion sunglasses, may not. So a cross-over enters, where a family need
descends to a desire more than a requirement and the obligation to charity rises as the primary and
priority obligation.
Where is that cross-over? Determining the exact point of the cross-over requires strong discernment.
And if we think that discernment is complex (just the simple question of how many times is eating
out too many times involves considerable thought), two factors add further complexity. These factors
are first the dramatic shifts in economic security (aka in the future we may not be better off than the
past), and second the compelling but ephemeral obligation to church.
The New Reality of Income and Security - Our typical family for this discussion, being of modest
means, generates sufficient income to afford satisfactory shelter, sufficient food, adequate clothing,
conservative use of heat, water and electricity, some dollars for college saving, contributions to
retirement, plus a few amenities, i.e. a yearly vacation, a couple trips to see the pro baseball team, a
modest collection of fine antique jewelry. In this typical family, those who work, work hard, those in
school, study diligently.
At the end of an occasional month, surplus funds remain. The question arises as to what should be
done with the surplus? Charity? Certainly I have argued that donations to charity fall squarely in the
mix of considerations. But here is the complexity. If the current month stood as the only time frame,
then direct comparisons could be made. Should the funds go to dining out, or maybe saving for a
nicer car, or maybe a new set of golf clubs, or maybe yes, a donation to charity?
That works if the time frame stands as a month. But the time frame stands not as a month; the time
frame is several dozen decades. Let's look at why.

Both parents work, but for companies that have capped the parents' pensions or maybe in unions
under pressure to reduce benefits. Both parents have moderate job security, but face a not-small risk
of being laid off, if not now, sometime in the coming years. Both parents judge their children will
obtain good career-building jobs, but jobs that will likely never have a pay level of the parents' jobs,
and certainly jobs that offer no pension (not even a capped version).
Further, both parents, despite any issues with the medical system, see a strong prospect, given both
are in reasonable health, of living into their eighties. But that blessing of a longer life carries with it
a corollary need to have the financial means to provide for themselves, and further to cover possible
long-term care costs.

Thus, caring for family obligations involves not just near-term needs, but planning and saving
sufficiently to navigate an incredibly uncertain and intricate economic future.
That stands as the new economic reality - diligent parents must project forward years and decades
and consider not just today's situation but multiple possible future scenarios. With such uncertainly
within the immediate family's needs and requirements, where does charity fit in?
Then we have another consideration - church.
Church as Charity, or Not - Certainly, gifts to the local church, whatever denomination, help the
needy, ill and less fortunate. The local pastor, or priest, or religious leader performs many charitable
acts and services. That person collects and distributes food for the poor, visits elderly in their
homes, leads youth groups in formative activities, administers to the sick in hospitals, aids and
rehabilitates drug addicts, assists in emergency relief, and performs numerous other duties and acts
of charity.
So contributions to church and religion provide for what could be considered secular, traditional
charity work.
But contributions to church also support the religious practice. That of course first supports the
priest, or pastor, or religious leader, as a person, in their basic needs. Contributions also support a
collection of ancillary items, and that includes buildings (generally large), statues, ornamentations,
sacred texts, vestments, flowers, chalices and a myriad of other costs related to celebrations and
ceremonies.
And unlike the nominally secular activities (the priest distributing food), these ceremonial activities
pertain to the strictly spiritual. These activities aim to save our souls or praise a higher deity or
achieve higher mental and spiritual states.
So donations to church, to the extent those donations support religious and spiritual aims, fall
outside the scope of charity, at least in the sense being considered for this discussion.
So where on the hierarchy of obligations would such donations fall? Are they an important
obligation, maybe the most important? Or maybe the least? Could donations to church represent a
desirable but discretionary act? Or a folly?
Many would claim that no conclusive proof exists of a spiritual deity, and further that belief in a
deity represents an uninformed delusion. However, while proving the existence of a deity may stand
as problematic, proving the non-existence of a spiritual realm stands as equally problematic. The
spiritual inherently involves that beyond our direct senses and experience; so we us inner
experience, interpretation, extrapolation - all in the eye of the beholder - to extend what we directly
experience into the nature of the spiritual and transcendental.
This renders, in this author's view, the existence and nature of the spiritual as philosophically
indeterminate. If one believes, we can not prove that belief incorrect logically or philosophically, and
if another does not belief, we can not demonstrate that they should believe.
Working through the Complexity - This article has concluded that strict obligation to charity exists,
and further concluded that obligation should be carried out until other equal obligation enters.
Obligation to family stands as the paramount competing obligation, and obligation to church, to the
degree based on legitimate faith and belief, also enters. A baseline obligation to self, for reasonable

sustenance, also of course exists (one can not give to charity if one is hungry, sick, tired or exposed
to the elements.)
Given this slate of obligations, competing for an individual's monetary resources, what strategy
provides for a proper ethical balance? Or more simply, since, even after all the words so far, we still
haven't answered the question, how much does one give to charity?
The answer lies not in a formula or rule. The balancing act between obligations, the time frames
involved in financial considerations, and the presence of the ephemeral spiritual component, present
too complex a problem. The answer lies in a process. The process is to plan.
Planning - When commuting or traveling, to reach the destination on time, whether it be the office,
or home, or a hotel, or a campsite, or the home of a relative, requires planning. The traveler must
consider all the various factors - distance, route, method of travel, congestion, speed, arrival time,
schedules and so on.
If simply arriving on time takes planning, certainly the much more complex task of fulfilling and
balancing the obligations to family, self, charity and church, demands planning. What type of
planning? Given that our discussion centers on monetary donations, the requirement is for budget
and financial planning. Many reasons drive a need for financial planning; our ethical obligation to
charity adds another.
That might appear strange. Serving family, community and God involves financial plans? That strikes
one as an improbable and illogical linkage. Serving is action, caring, doing. Why does financial
planning become such a central ethical requirement?
A moments reflections reveals why. For most, we cannot grow food to meet our family obligation, or
deliver medical care for disaster assistance, or weave the garments used in church celebrations.
What we generally do is work, and through work, earn a salary. Our salary literally becomes our
currency for meeting our obligations. That is the essence of our modern economy, i.e. we don't
directly provide for our necessities. Rather, we work, and acquire food, shelter, clothing and so on
through purchases, not by producing those items directly.