If I give money to the needy, am I good?
Look what Jakarta traffic did to a mf
Before carrying on, note that a lot of sentences written below will be in form of question, because I also got no idea.
Usually we are taught early on that sharing our wealth is good. I was enrolled in a catholic school so I remember a little bit about the procedures involved when you go to the church. In one segment they pass around some kind of…sack? You put money in such way that no one should know how much you donated to the church.
Theoretically, you can just pretend to put your hand in the sack as if you are donating even though you really didn’t, or worse. But don’t take this as an encouragement to be a dick. I’m just saying.
Where that money goes, I don’t know, I’m not the church’s auditor. It’s supposed to be later managed by the church to be shared with the needy I guess. But the point being, I’m sure we are all taught early on that sharing your wealth to the needy is the right thing to do.
But why is it the right thing to do? Is it because it is deemed to be ‘good’? And if so, what is ‘good’?
I was heading back from downtown Jakarta to home. Traffic in Jakarta is notoriously bad, and I was driving, hence further contributing to the traffic (I know).
On one of the many traffic lights on the path, there is this one particular intersection where the traffic light is just a few meters from a train track. So when the traffic is getting bad, it is inevitable that some cars could get stuck waiting on the traffic on the train track, which is not ideal.
Imagine getting stuck in a traffic then suddenly a train comes steadily to t-bone you. You can’t go anywhere, you are in a traffic jam and just so it happens you stopped on a train track.
Common sense dictates that this is easy, just keep the train track clear and only cross if the traffic after the track is clear. But somehow, that requires a positional awareness that many lack here. They will force their way forward even if it means stopping on top of a train track.
So for this problem, there is this one dude hanging out near where the track crosses the traffic jam queue. He kind of….uses himself to block vehicles forcing their way through the track so they won’t get stuck on the traffic jam on top of the track. So you don’t get t-boned. Then he lets vehicles through when he thinks the road after the track has cleared enough to make room for more vehicles.
Some people gave him money for this. But don’t tell. I kinda remember someone said we can get jailed for this. Dunno if that was a joke or not. This guy’s not begging tho.
After I safely crossed the track, I get stuck behind the traffic light again. But this time an old lady came begging for money by sticking her face to my car’s window (and several other cars’). I did not give any money, neither did the others in the traffic.
Suppose I gave the train track dude money, am I good because I gave the train track dude money, or was I bad because I didn’t give the old lady any? Or was I being conceited just by telling you this?
Why would someone give money in the first place? Is it because the train track dude has performed a ‘service’ to me so I felt that he was deserving of some credit, while the lady did not? If so, I could say that that was a give and take transaction. The train track dude gave us his ‘service’ and we paid him for it. While the lady did not, hence I did not give.
By definition of ‘good’, which is to be morally right, may also include to give to the needy, not just those who have performed a service/barter with us. By that definition, to be called good, we should have given the old lady some money, regardless of services performed.
If we follow that definition of good, what if there are multiple ladies begging on the street? If we strive to be good, what is the ‘good’ course of action? Do we give every single one of them some money? If so, you might cause a traffic jam by not moving your vehicle quickly out of the way, hence doing a disservice to everyone behind you. There might be a a parent driving their sick kid to the hospital behind you. There might be a businessman driving to a meeting (who does this these days anyways?) behind you. Or should we just ignore them?
Of course, our resources are limited. It would not be wise to give too much that none is left for yourself. After all, you can’t help anyone if you can’t help yourself. That in itself, is it morally right? Again, I remember a story in the bible where a woman who donated most of her earnings, are a better example of giving than those who gave more in terms of absolute number but only at a fraction of their overall wealth. So which one matters more in terms of the amount we donate? The absolute number, or as a percentage of wealth available on hand?
Some argue that giving money to beggars will just teach them to be lazy. While this is a pretty…cold way to look at this, we can’t neither deny or fully endorse this view. In some cases (don’t know how much due to lack of data) there are those who get by a pretty comfortable life just by begging, there are some who beg and proceeds to spend the money unwisely, while there are also some (if not most) who are truly needy and begging is their last resort. In any case, am I evil for endorsing what they say a lazy behavior? Or am I evil because I endorse that view, generalizing everyone who begs as lazy, and therefore ignoring those truly in need?
Or, if I don’t give money to beggars on the grounds that we shouldn’t endorse lazy behavior, am I good for giving them some tough love? Will I be bad if I give money to beggars and thus endorsing laziness?
I was personally taught early on that people who beg are lazy. But of course, life is a cruel mistress and it is never that simple. My line of thinking was that, if I give them money, how do I know that this money will go to proper betterment of their lives and not cigarettes? The line of thinking should not stop there. The answer I arrived back then was to give through a relatively trusted organizations. At least some of these organizations are getting audited (I guess?) to ensure money went into them was not misused. But even then, we can never be sure. Even some charitable organizations can be used as money laundering vehicles to buy swaths of land in Taiwan.
Is it a matter of inconvenience? Let’s say you don’t bring spare change. Or let’s say you don’t have cash on hand at all (which is not wise, you should at least bring some cash with you). You got your e-wallet on your phone but you can’t just venmo or cashapp these beggars because as a society we are not….. that advanced yet. If I don’t have cash on hand, does this make me exempt from giving?
Can good and bad be concluded just from a single action? If not, can a thousand bad deeds be repaid with a thousand good deeds? If for example you murder someone, how to you repay that? How do we give weight to each deed, good or bad? Hell who even decides something as good or bad?
But that still does not answer why you give (or not) money for donations.
Do I really want these people to get better quality of life, however small? Or do I just need something to wash clean my conscience?
Like, oh I’m usually not a very good man, but I donated some money, now I’m good. It’s kind of similar to money laundering, but what I’m laundering is my conscience. I’m buying my conscience by way of money.
For that whether the recipient of the donation managed to better their life or not might not matter. It could be that what matters was that the part where ‘I gave some money’ not ‘the money will be used to buy milk for the kids instead of cigarettes’.
If I truly care about the betterment of people’s lives, even though I donated through organizations, or let’s say, Kitabisa.com, shouldn’t I be closely monitoring where my money goes? The platform do give that report to some extent, but the thing is I did not bother to check. Can I say that I give for the betterment of their lives, if I’m not truly sure what the donations will be used for?
When you give money to the beggar, do you feel the faintest warm glowing feeling inside you? Do you feel that even before you know what the donation will be used for? Or if at all?
So I might say, I was just buying my conscience.
Or even better. When you donate, does one feel a sense of superiority? That they are better than their fellows because they donate while others do not. Do you need to be recognized for your good deeds? Is it okay if one feel a sense of superiority for donating? After all, they did donate. They did contribute.
If I’m just buying my conscience, am I not good? To be good, must the nature of the donation be altruistic? Is it not enough that my donation, whatever my intent is, might result in the betterment of another’s life? Must a good deed be accompanied with a good intention as well?
Let’s say you are a massively successful influencer. You launched an initiative to get people to donate for a cause. Let’s just call the initiative #teamsky where you promise the donation will go into eradicating pollution in the air (heh). People love and trust you, hence they vote with their wallet and donated to your cause.
What if people were to know that not 100% of the proceeds will go to the cause? A percentage will go to, let’s say, ‘operational expenses’? Like to promote the cause and let’s say put some advertisement to get more traction to the initiative (and your instagram and youtube channel).
Of course people will quickly point out that that is not allowed since you are misappropriating the money people entrusted to you.
Or maybe some will point out the impure motives. Like, this might be half a publicity stunt. You will benefit from future endorsement money and ad revenue. From this standpoint, what you are doing is not purely altruistic in nature.
But whatever the argument is, let’s say that for a fact that at least 90% of the proceeds will go into the cause. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is it good because the cause will get 90% of the proceeds? Or is it bad because the other 10% might not directly go to the initiative? Will you get arrested? Would it be better to not do this whole #teamsky initiatives thing if our intent are not purely altruistic? Or is it still good because whatever your intent is, it can’t be denied that 90% of the proceeds will benefit the cause?
Or in more simpler cases. You go give out lunch boxes on the street and have your friends (intentionally or not) record the deed on Instagram and shared to everyone. Is the intent purely altruistic?
Just recently a UFC fighter did just that. He recorded himself giving out money to people outside of Walmart or something. His rival subsequently bashes him for recording the deed. He did give out money, and he did record the deed.
Which is more important? The deed or the intent? Can we have both all the time? If not, which one is more important?
What am I saying. Hell what you do with your money is entirely your (and the tax authority’s) problem. Happy to waste your time thanks.
