Chapter 18 The Non-Contributor to Charity
We are beset by the view that it is blessed to give to charity, that it is also virtuous,
seemly, good, fair, respectable, altruistic and endearing.
In like manner, the refusal to give to charity is met with contempt, derision, incredulity
and horror.
The person who refuses to contribute to charity is considered a pariah.
This sociological imperative is supported by legions of beggars, fundraisers, clerics
and other needy groups.
We are exhorted from the pulpit and the media, by the Hare Krishnas and the panhandlers,
the flower people and the March of Dimes children, the cripples, the helpless, the impoverished
and the beaten down.
Refusing to charity is not in itself evil. When it is a voluntary decision on the part
of responsible adults, it does not violate an individual's rights. Yet there are dangers
in charity, and compelling reasons for refusing to contribute to it. In addition, there are
serious flaws in the moral philosophy upon which charity is based.
The Evils of Charity
One of the great evils of charity, and one of the most cogent reasons for refusing to
contribute to it, is that it interferes with the survival of the human species.
According to the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest, those organisms most
able to exist in a given environment will be naturally selected, by showing a greater
and the Species Thrives.
Some contend that the law of natural selection does not apply to modern civilization.
Critics point to artificial kidney machines, open heart surgery, and other scientific and
medical breakthroughs, and argue that Darwin's survival law has been preempted by modern
science.
For people with diseases and genetic drawbacks, which in the past led to an early death, today
Live On to Reproduce.
This does not, however, demonstrate that the Darwinian law is inapplicable.
Modern scientific breakthroughs have not repealed Darwin's law.
They have only changed the specific cases to which it applies.
In the past, the characteristic antithetical to human survival might have been a defective
heart or poor kidneys.
with the advent of modern medical advances, medical failures are likely to become less
and less important as grounds for natural selection.
What will become more and more important is the ability to live on a crowded planet.
Characteristics opposed to survival may include an allergy to smoke, excessive argumentativeness
or bellicosity.
Such characteristics will tend to lessen a person's ability to survive to adulthood.
These characteristics lessen the person's chances of maintaining a situation, marriage,
employment, in which reproduction is possible.
Thus, if the Darwinian laws are allowed to work themselves out, such negative traits
will tend to disappear.
But, if charity is extended, these harmful traits will be carried over to the next generation.
While charity of this type is undeniably harmful, when it is private, it is limited in scope by a type of Darwinian law that applies to the givers.
They come to bear some of the harm they cause. Thus they are led, as if by Adam Smith's invisible hand, to cut back on their giving.
For example, if parental charity takes the form of sparing the rod and spoiling the child,
some of the harmful effects of this charity rebound upon the parents.
Being on the receiving end of spoiled children tends to temper the giver.
Many of the parents who supported their adult hippie children throughout the sixties discontinued
such support when they themselves suffered from its harmful effects.
The charity also has a built-in limitation because any given private fortune is circumscribed.
The case of public charity is ominously different.
In public charity, all natural barriers are virtually absent.
It is a rare case indeed when public charity is reduced because of its harmful effects.
The fortune at the government's disposal is only limited by its desire for taxes and its
A case in point is the American foreign aid program of the 1950s and 1960s.
The government of the United States paid American farmers more than the market price for their
produce, thus creating gigantic surpluses, for which still more money had to be allotted.
Large quantities of this produce were then sent to countries such as India, where the
The domestic farm industry was virtually ruined by this subsidized importation.
Other detrimental effects of governmental charity have been documented by a number of
social scientists.
G. William Domhoff, in his book, The Higher Circles, shows that charitable institutions,
such as workmen's compensation, collective bargaining in labor, unemployment insurance
Taxes and welfare programs were begun not by advocates of the poor, as is universally
accepted, but by the rich. These programs promote their own class interests. The aim
of this state corporate charity system is not to redistribute wealth from rich to poor,
but to buy up the potential leaders of the poor and tie them to the hegemony of the ruling
and Class, while maintaining an intellectual class determined to convince an unwary public
that government charity actually benefits them.
In like manner, Francis Piven and Richard Cloward point out in Regulating the Poor that
the charitable institution of welfare serves not mainly to aid the poor, but rather to
suppress them.
The modus operandi here is to allow the welfare roles to increase, not in times of great need,
but in times of social upheaval, and to decrease the welfare roles, not in times of plenty,
but in times of social tranquility.
Thus, the welfare system is a kind of bread and circus method of controlling the masses.
The Philosophy Behind Charity
With these problems there are those who view charity as a blessed state and consider contributions
a moral obligation.
Such people would make charity compulsory if they could.
If, however, an act is made compulsory, it is not charity, for charity is defined as
voluntary giving.
If an individual is forced to give, he is not a contributor to charity.
He is the victim of a robbery.
The crux of charity for those who would wish it to be made compulsory, the laws of logic
and linguistics notwithstanding, is that there is a duty, an obligation, a moral imperative
for all to give to the less fortunate.
This rests on the premise that we are each our brother's keepers.
This philosophy, however, contradicts a basic premise of morality, namely that it should
would always be at least possible for a person to do what is moral.
If there are two people in different geographical areas who are in dire need of John's aid
at the same time, it would be impossible for John to help both of them.
If John cannot help both needy people, and since helping both is a requirement of the
and the Brothers Keeper morality, then, clearly, with the best intentions, John cannot be moral.
And if, according to any given theory of ethics, a well-intentioned person cannot be moral,
the theory is incorrect.
The second basic flaw in the Brothers Keeper moral view is that it logically calls for
absolute income equality, whether or not its proponents realize this.
Remember, this morality preaches that it is the moral duty of those who have more to share
with those who have less. Adam, who has $100, shares with Richard, who has only $5, by giving
Richard $10. Adam now has $90 and Richard $15. One might think that Adam has followed
the dictates of the sharing philosophy. However, this philosophy states that it is the duty
of all people to share with the less fortunate, and Adam still has more than Richard.
If Adam wishes to act morally according to the Brother's Keeper moral view, he will
have to share again with Richard.
The sharing can end only when Richard no longer has less than Adam.
The doctrine of absolute income equality, a necessary consequence of the Brother's Keeper
The Brother's Keeper philosophy will admit of no prosperity for anyone over and above the meager pittance the most helpless individual is able to amass.
Thus, the Brother's Keeper philosophy is in direct and irreconcilable opposition to the natural ambition to improve one's lot.
Believers in it are torn by ultimately conflicting views, and the result, naturally enough, is hypocrisy.
How else can one describe people who claim to be practitioners of the Brothers Keeper philosophy and yet have well-stocked pantries, a television, a stereo set, a car, jewelry and real estate, while in many parts of the world people face starvation?
They dogmatically affirm their commitment to equality, yet deny that their lush wealth is in any way contradictory to this commitment.
One explanation offered is that a certain amount of wealth and well-being is necessary for them to maintain their jobs, which allows them to earn the money to contribute to the less fortunate.
Clearly it is true that the brother's keeper must maintain his own ability to keep his brothers. His demise due to starvation is not called for by the brother's keeper philosophy.
The wealthy brother's keeper thus explains himself as being in a position similar to the slave owned by the rational slave owner.
For the slave must be at least minimally healthy and comfortable, even contented, if he or she is to produce for the owner.
The wealthy brother's keeper has, in effect, enslaved himself for the benefit of the downtrodden whom he aids.
He has amassed the amount which he needs in order to best serve his fellow man.
His wealth and standard of living are just what a rational, profit-maximizing slave owner would allow his slave to enjoy.
Everything in his possession is enjoyed only to the extent and for the sole purpose of increasing and or maintaining his economic ability
to help those who are less fortunate than he is, according to this argument.
It might be barely possible that a brother's keeper living in a garret could be telling
the truth when he explains his possessions in these terms.
But what of the average person who claims to practice the brother's keeper morality,
the civil servant earning $17,000 a year and living in a cooperative apartment in New York
City?
It can hardly be seriously contended that the possessions he has collected are necessary
for his productivity, especially when these holdings could be sold for money which could
significantly aid the downtrodden.
Far from being a blessed activity, contributing to charity can have harmful effects.
In addition, the moral theory upon which charity rests is riddled with contradictions and makes
It's hypocrites of those who are pressured by it.