Sunday, April 21, 2013

On (the obligatory nature of) charity.

Random chance is neither fair, nor unfair. No one has a moral obligation to compensate for it. Why must charity be forced upon a person, or he be ostracized for not following suit because he finds it to be an absurd ideal? The privileged aren't automatically indebted to the universe, and the underprivileged don't get a karmic trust fund. If one chooses to subscribe to such fancies out of selflessness, goodwill or guilt, then it is entirely a matter of belief. By all means, one is free go ahead and rid oneself of the perceived debt or obligation he finds himself carrying(the question of perceptual error notwithstanding). One needn't waste empathy on a generalization as gross as a specie. If you give to those you take from, are not frivolous with your compassion, and your unfaltering devotion lies with the few things and people you pledge it to, for reasons more logical than the basis of blanket-term charity; then you must, at the very least, be spared the quasi-self righteousness. Constancy of purpose over moral convenience, always.

1 comment:

anonymousseekeroflie said...

Very genuine.
"Constancy of purpose over moral convenience, always."

Alas! world is not that fair.