Saturday, December 06, 2003

should charity be bounded by time and distance?

worked until 8 tonight. by the time i got home, everyone was out doing there own thing. a bunch of people went to temple square to see the lights. i really wanna go this winter, so i need to find someone to take. i ended up hitting the gym for a while and then sitting back with a movie and a book.

should charity be bounded by time and distance?

i went to smith's for my lunch break today to get myself a salad. as i was entering there was one of those salvation army dudes ringing his bell. i told myself that i was going to make a donation as i was leaving. as i left, i almost forgot, but after hearing the bells, i turned myself around to throw in a few bills. open my wallet. only a ten. i about turned back, but decided to drop in the ten. folded it. about to push in the bucket. its not a ten. its a twenty. i am rather strapped for cash right now, i could sacrifice a ten, but a twenty would be a little too much to for me right now. of course, this is from a guy who minutes before spent five dollars on a spinache salad. i will make a donation tomorrow though. i'll pass on lunch and donate ten.

the whole situation got me thinking a two quick thoughts

time. why is it that everyone seems to care about others during december (and maybe november), but not the rest of the year? are people ay less hungry or in need in march or september? i try to be giving most of the year, but i admit i also do better on giving during the christmas season. one thing that really pushed me into wanting to be a philanthropist was hugh nibley's approaching zion. after reading that book, i had a huge desire to share my blessings with others. i feel bad now when i pass a beggar(sp?) but fail to give.

distance. here's the situation. you are going to an expensive restaurant and a movie and are only carrying enough money to pay for those things. on the way there, you pass a child who is suffering from starvation. with the money you have, you could get him some food, provide him with some necessities, and still have a small amount left to provide yourself with a simple meal. who could pass that child, acknowledge his existance and suffering, fail to help, but still feel good about herself? who would not consider neglecting the child as anything short of morally deplorable? who would not consider helping this child her mortal duty?

situation two. same as above, but there is no starving child on the way to your dinner. the child is in africa (or maybe in a nearby shelter). you know a starving child exists and you could help him with your money. is it your moral duty to help this child? does distance make neglecting a child in africa any less morally disgusting?

think about it

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please provide a name or consistent pseudonym with your comments and avoid insults or personal attacks against anyone or any group. All anonymous comments will be immediately deleted. Other comments are subject to deletion at my discretion.