Main > The Round Table

Discussion: Largesse

<< < (2/4) > >>

Sir William:
That is a good point, Sir Brian....one that I did not consider.  In retrospect, he really DID do them a favor, although probably not in the manner he intended (as you pointed out).

In today's society, much more focus is given to 'looking the other way' or 'minding one's business' as the sayings go...I find myself doing the same at times and have to consciously re-align myself.  It is one of the reasons why a good deal of people give money to the poor...by doing so, they can alleviate feelings of guilt stemming from not doing more...whether its to a favorite charity or to the guy asking for a few coins on the street; people dig deep less out of a sense of caring for your fellow man and more along the lines of assuaging whatever guilt one feels for being in a better situation in life, or some deeper need.

Sir Edward:

I think Sir Brian raises an interesting point. And I'm glad to see some really good discussion on this topic in general! :) Sometimes performing good deeds or serving a greater good can carry with it an emotional or spiritual burden. Generosity can take many forms, in the giving of money and material goods, but also giving of time, aid, labor, or even a kind word, so we probably should not forget that sometimes the sacrifice on the part of the giver might be a mental one.

In a way, I think a lot of people fall into a sort of cultural trap of feeling guilty about having more than others, whether comparing themselves to the poor and homeless, or to people in third world countries, or what have you. Generosity and good deeds should be more about the positive benefit it provides rather than compensating for a subconscious or even conscious level of guilt.

But that can also bring up an interesting philosophical question. Does a good deed lose value if the motivation behind it was less than pure? If someone donates $1000 to a cause because they genuinely want to help, is that worth more than $1000 donated to the same cause by someone whose only goal is to improve their reputation, or offset a bad deed they committed? While it's easy to say that they're equal, at least in terms of the result, it's also a dangerous concept to be able to buy yourself a certain amount of leniency for wrong doings.

Sir Brian:
The later portion of your post Sir Edward is very prominent in the modern Christian church and the primary modus operandi of practically all the major denominations. – i.e. essentially they practice a faith based on “works”.
I believe many in society have an innate need to balance their inner turmoil with the most expedient method at their disposal (money being disposable in your example) so they can go back to the “me” part.  :(

I truly hope not to offend anyone with this next portion of my reply but whether you believe in Jesus and who he was or not; I firmly believe he was the supreme example of the virtue of largesse and provided many teachings on the subject and to what extent one should strive for:


--- Quote ---Mark 12:41-43
Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."
--- End quote ---

Oh to be able to give freely and without stint all that you have truly is a wonderful virtue that I hope to attain within my lifetime.

Sir William:
I think I can agree with you academically, Sir Brian- and while I do not aspire to such great heights, I do aspire and work towards being a better person in general.  The parable about the widow's mite is one of the most well-known as it speaks volumes about how skewed our society seems to have always been.

To spur it on somewhat, it isn't just modern Christianity (to the other two religions, Christianity will of course always be the 'new guy' in the Big 3 I like to call the 'Abrahamic' religions); if it were not for this (or specifically, Catholic clergy selling indulgences into Heaven) or other similar actions, there would have been no Reformation, no dissension among the ranks.  Is that a good thing?  I can't call it...I've no Divine inspiration in that regard.

And since I had to take a break to do something else, I'm no longer clear as to where I was going with that.  Sorry!

Sir Patrick:

--- Quote from: Sir Brian on 2010-10-12, 18:16:06 ---I believe many in society have an innate need to balance their inner turmoil with the most expedient method at their disposal (money being disposable in your example) so they can go back to the “me” part.  :(
--- End quote ---

I agree, and it is unfortunate that we see this attitude not just with "strangers" but within our own families.  Think of the spouses and parents who are more than happy to spend their money on their families, but never their time.  Largesse at home would go a long way to curing the world's ills.

EDIT: Spelling :-[

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page