Dbq Essay On Charity

The choices each of us make impact the perspectives we hold to this day over many controversial issues. For example, one debate includes defining the ethics of charity. Some people suggest that charity creates happy and well-off people through the act of donation. However, they fail to recognize that charity illustrates the ugly behavior of donating for promotion of self-image versus the false intent of supporting others needs. Charity is defined as organizations that raise money in support of a cause, but this idea creates a negative society. People should be encouraged to provide for themselves BECAUSE money alters good into self-interest,consequently tainting the purpose of charity.
One instance of unfavorable human behavior in relation

to charity includes: the glorification of monetary support spent towards charity groups; as well as, the glorification of self through the noble idea of donating. Monetary support symbolizes how fortunate or wealthy one is based on the sum sent. Heftier donations signify a purpose to boost the moral perceptions others have on an individual. However, the intent of charity aims to help people, animals, or objects that are in bad shape. And while money may seem abstract in the notion that a piece of paper can save a life-- the underlying purpose of giving is evil. Tax incentives and deductions appeal to the public but, illustrate the greed in society. Writer Rob Reicher believes that “tax incentives… can worsen social inequalities..reducing the revenue that the state has available for social projects.” (Source B, Para. 7) The government loses revenue when aiming to blandish the public to donate. Ethically this concomitant proves human nature is self-gratifying and self-serving in looking to avoid taxes. In addition, money represents a promise of trade and worth, but, a “$1,000 donation is valued the same whether it is for an art museum or for natural-disaster relief.“ (Source B, Para. 7) Suggesting that the value given to an organization has minor importance and that the impact of the donation generates a greater benefit. Thus, money is a self-centered option used instead of change.
Another example of humanity’s unpleasant reaction to charity is in the application of money to alleviate domestic issues. Perhaps this option appears positive, but money temporarily solves social problems. Thus, necessary change may not occur because “charitable giving may … distract from finding the best solution… involv[ing] a complex rethink of the… world” (Source B, Para. 4) This implies that economic pushes alter the amount of good achieved to a specific group and aggrandizing the issue in that “‘his generous impulse freezes within him if his power is challenged or his generosities are accepted without suitable humility.’”(Source B, Para. 3) The promise of some change lacks justification in the use of charities, and this suggests that ideologies need to adjust to create long-term solutions for social issues like poverty, or animal abuse.
In addition, providing money to special organizations also eliminates the amount of support the federal and state governments’ are responsible for.

The sole interest of government is to aid and represent the people it governs. When organizations like poverty-stricken groups receive help from charities “governments might be more likely to focus on dealing with… [them] if they weren't being helped by charities.”(Source B, Para. 4) Less help is done because the need is falsely filled. Furthermore, these special interest groups weaken the ethicality of the deed achieved because “‘for every act of charity, applied to heal suffering… serves to weaken the personal springs of social reform, alike by the 'miraculous' relief it brings… softening influence it exercises on the hearts and heads of those who witness it.’”(Source B, Para. 4) As a result, people begin to overestimate the ability of charities and underestimate the ability of

government.
Finally, the money raised for an organization may fall into the wrong hands. Resulting in ill use of funds and the situation quoted worsens. Support focused on specific individuals defeats the fair purpose of helping everyone because “the interests of all persons ought to count equally… no intrinsic difference to the rights and obligations of individuals.”(Source B, Para. 6) No matter what background or life story someone has; if a struggle is found, a solution shall be offered. Equally important, the funds may also be favored to a minority within a system. One such case is world hunger, the author believes that “ I have to compete sometimes with people who want to feed children [to the exclusion of others]. … Don't create this kind of caste system in which the public is given choices they don't have to make.”(Source B, Para. 6) An artificial social structure is created through the belief that some groups deserve more help than others.
As always in debates the other side believes adversely.

Critics for charity suggest three points: First, charity relieves the tension caused from an issue through money. Furthering to acknowledge that “giving to those who are lacking, shows you are grateful for what you have and want to help make sure that others have their needs met as well.” (Source A, Para. 8) Proposing that more good deeds occur through these charitable acts than the corruption caused. Second, critics may believe that the government fulfills its role in aiding those in need, and that charity also allows this system to help more people. With two sources of support, more people would be saved, and “Two hundred dollars… if it is true that this could help save one child's life… I think people who are able but do not donate should be condemned.” (Schaefer, Para. 7) When a simple solution is given for a need, ethically one should not ignore the opportunity to serve a better purpose. Third, critics also state that focusing on a specific group helps the most unfortunate and starts to take care of the root of the problem. Logistically helping those who are the most desperate is a convincing argument and that “through those acts of charitable giving, it makes the world a better place as those in need begin to possess a new outlook on life.” (Source A, Para. 4) Although detractors fail to recognize that money is deficient in stopping or solving the social issue. Countless times the same issues like

poverty affect different people subsequently following when others were helped, because in life everyone has good and bad days. Plus, the government may not help as much as the government originally would have, and loopholes develop. Crooks live throughout society and sometimes bilk, and taint our social programs. Through additional benefits, negative people take advantage of the added help, and government may not see a need there when the problem is in the process of being solved with charity. Finally, social and political change are better options in solving a domestic problem. While both these changes may require a long duration to occur, the good created through this action fabricates more benefits than charities working together and using money to solve these issues.
In conclusion, the purpose of charity is much less for the benefit of the unfortunate, but more for selfish needs. Charity has many faults, a few of which are giving to emphasize one’s affluence, the money aiding these problems are a temporary relief, the government lacks purpose to continue support, and the support given can fall into the wrong hands. To become successful, work and dedication are necessary in helping a need. Sometimes problems in life cannot be solved by a knight in shining armor, but through saving ourselves.