This is the question posed on Annabel's Facebook Page:
Ramsey Fahel Please offer your most compelling reason (either moral or practical) that somebody who has "more" should give "some" to somebody who has "less".
This is just the kind of question we should be discussing....it is the the foundation of this cause and of who we are as a group and as a people.
The operative word there is "should."
And the answer is this: Nothing. Zip. Bupkis. Nada. Zero. There is absolutely nothing that "should" compel us to give.
We give because we wish to.
And one never, ever experiences Love without the act of Giving of oneself to another, whether it be time, talent or treasures.
To Love you must Give. And we are a loving people.
Comments
Questions
Are you talking about individual giving, where one gives to another person, or institutional giving, where one gives to a organization? Or are you including why we should be forced to give via taxes? If it's about individual giving I don't quite see the connection to the Coffee Party.
Individual Giving
To me, giving is always an individual act. I am giving my time and attention to the Coffee Party at the moment, and I'm doing this for no other reason other than to get my point clarified. Might not agree with me, but it's important that our words be understood to one another. Group giving, I think, is when a few give in the same manner for a similar purpose. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you again for offering me your feedback.
Actually, that's not true
"And the answer is this: Nothing. Zip. Bupkis. Nada. Zero. There is absolutely nothing that "should" compel us to give."
Actually, that's not true, but since your point here seems to be to declare what you believe as some great truth I suspect a discussion of wealth and income disparity and their harmful effects on society would be lost on you.
In a short time all that's left of us is what we gave
I suppose a discussion of productivity disparity yielding an income disparity would be lost on you, skytag.
But... as astonishing as this may seem, I agree with you to a point.
I believe Harry Chapin put it best when he said that he didn't see how he could ride around in a Rolls Royce while there were people starving to death. "I do one show for me and one for the other guy," he famously said. That was a lie. The vast majority of the money Harry generated went to charity and he lived quite modestly, leaving very little money when he died in an automobile accident on his way to play a charity show. He was killed in 1981 driving a 1975 Volkswagen Rabbit.
"Oh if a man tried
To take his time on Earth
And prove before he died
What one man's life could be worth
I wonder what would happen
to this world."
~~Harry Forster Chapin
Response
A great deal is lost on me, this is true. Ask my children. That said, what about that statement upset you?
Not upset
Nothing upset me. You posed a question and then answered it with an unequivocal declaration:
"And the answer is this: Nothing. Zip. Bupkis. Nada. Zero. There is absolutely nothing that "should" compel us to give."
That's hardly an invitation for open-minded discussion.
Reply
This is great! Thank you so much for this!!!!
First, your right. It was a Big, Fat Declaration and it sounded a little pompous. So, I apologize from that. Big, Loud, Old and Irish...not a great combination for riding into the Blogosphere. Why Annabel gave me this forum is anybody's guess. Blind faith, maybe.
What I meant was (if I had a nickel for every time I started a sentence with those words...) that there's a distinct difference between "should" and "want." There is a logical thread that my BFD missed and I erroneously felt was implied.
When we "should" do something in the spirit of social justice and fairness, we do this because we are compelled by a ethos. The unfolding act is supported by a feeling of responsibility to behave in a manner that supports that belief system.
When we "want" to do something in kindness for another, it is supported by not so much an order or responsibility, but through an emotional connection with the circumstance. Our act, therefore, is rooted in empathy.
I made this distinction because I felt we as a whole are better when we want to help, not because we should. I don't dismiss nor wish to minimize what we as a people "should" do. It is vitally important to recognize those things. Yet, as a gesture of sharing and compassion, of empathy toward elevating the common good and reinforcing fairness and justice, it is love that I feel is most sustaining and the better motivator. And I strive to be a loving person through my actions. Did I make that a little clearer?