2 of 26

Voluntary

Write now Article Tools

"A forced morality is no morality, a forced charity is no charity." (source unknown)

There are many reasons for charity to be voluntary. Not the least of those reasons is, if it isn't voluntary, it's not charity.

Many major religions speak to us about taking care of the poor as our moral duty. However, to fulfill a moral obligation one must be free to choose whether or not to complete that duty. A man in chains is not more moral because he has committed no crime. A man enslaved has not had his life more fulfilled by his daily labor to someone else's benefit.

The Bible says, "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Corinthians 9:7; (New International Version)

While Islam has a minor component of compulsion of charity ("zakat "), the greater portion of charity through the Islamic faith is voluntary ("sadaqa" ). Islamic law provides for religious government to collect zakat in amounts as low as two and a half percent. Sadaqa, on the other hand, is expected of devout followers but is purely voluntary.

Hinduism speaks repeatedly of charity and giving, but there is no legal compulsion whatsoever in the Hindu religion beyond doing that which is right and moral. Hinduism does not provide for any component of one's life to be forced. This seems to be a recognition of the belief in the quote above, that one can only be moral if one does so through free will.

To force our fellow man to labor for the benefit of others denies that man his opportunity to prove his worth through his own choices. Without the free choice to give, or not to give, one truly is not being charitable. One cannot be moral without choosing to be moral.

Beyond that, compulsion may even force a person to support a system of charity that is in direct opposition to their beliefs. Some religions believe in providing a "hand-up", rather than a "hand-out". In such a system it may be considered more moral to "teach a person to fish" rather than "give a person a fish". By forcing someone with such a belief to provide to those that aren't willing to work to their own benefit can violate the charitable and moral principles of those being forced to provide.

Additional issues arise when a bureaucracy is set up through tax dollars to provide such charity. Often the overhead of the bureaucracy is greater than the money that actually reaches those in need. And the officials in such an organization end up with an ultimate goal that is far different than the goal of helping the needy. The bureaucrat's main goal is the continuation of their jobs through the continuation of the bureaucracy.

Voluntary charity can be directed to the areas that better align with the goals of the individual providing the charity. And, voluntary charity can take numerous forms. A person who gives of their own accord can give time, goods or money, while coerced charity is virtually always provided through taxation, in the form of dollars. And, as before, many of those dollars are taken to pay the officials providing the charity, while, voluntary charity can accomplish most of the needed work through volunteered time.

By taking the choice out of charity we end up with many results that, ultimately, are uncharitable.

Learn more about this author, Keith Hamburger.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should charity be voluntary or compelled??
We want to hear your view. Write now!