Peter Singer wrote:
From an ethical view, however, should we care so much about the purity of the motive with which the gift was made? Surely what matters is that something was given to a good cause.Charity or dana has always been an important Buddhist cultivation. However, the Buddhist ethics always placed intentions above form. What was important is the intention rather than the act. Hence true generosity is giving without expectation of any returns. Giving with non too altruistic intentions are not considered good.
Thus the emphasis among the Buddhists has always been to do dana silently, lest it be seen as something that was motivated by pride or ego rather than altruism.
But as I thought about the issue brought up in this article, I would acknowledge this:
1. Regardless of the motivation of our giving, it does benefit the receiver. To the charity which receive the money we donated, it did not matter if the money was given out of genuine generosity or other less altruistic reasons, it was the money it needed.
2. We do become more generous when we see or hear about other people giving. It could be just herd mentality or peer pressure -- when other people are giving, we will tend to chip in too. But we could also get inspired because we learned about some admirable giving by other people. I know many of the cheques I've sent out was definitely inspired or motivated by some other people's generosity.
So I think in terms of "creating a culture of giving", it does make sense if we would be more forth coming with the good we do rather than to keep at it silently.
I think Peter Singer does have a point when he wrote:
We need to get over our reluctance to speak openly about the good we do. Silent giving will not change a culture that deems it sensible to spend all your money on yourself and your family, rather than help those in greater need -- even though helping others is likely to be more fulfilling in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment