17 ms·

Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one. On an ascending level, they are as follows: 8. When dona

by 7402 6y ago

Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one. On an ascending level, they are as follows: 8. When donations are given grudgingly. 7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully. 6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked. 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked. 4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor still doesn't know the specific identity of the recipient. 3. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the recipient is unaware of the source. 2. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in this category. 1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others. [0] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charitable-giving https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charita...

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
Muslims also have a similar tier system of giving charity, but because Islam mandates charity from its followers at a fixed rate (a flat income tax for charity), it places the "communal funds" very low in the totem pole. Actually the Prophet Muhammad said a similar thing to what Feeney has said here about wanting to give charity while alive rather than after his death: > A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Which charity is the most superior in reward?" He replied, "The charity which you practice while you are healthy, niggardly and afraid of poverty and wish to become wealthy. Do not delay it to the time of approaching death and then say, 'Give so much to such and such, and so much to such and such.' And it has already belonged to such and such (as it is too late)." https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500 https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500
- acqq 6y ago
  I guess Jewish "tzedakah" and Arabian "zakat" have anyway both the same linguistic root, both being Semitic languages and everything related happening in the same small part of the world (if the word itself has some other origins).
  - lamida 6y ago
    There is specific arabic word for it "Sadaqah" which means charity. Zakat is actually one of the Islamic pillar about charity to purifies. There is specific percentage or amount for different zakat. Zakat is the form of charity.
rapind 6y ago
9. When the donation wouldn’t occur without a tax break.
- vicda 6y ago
  10. When the donation gives you favors in return.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    11. When your donation is taken by force through taxes
    - winter_blue 6y ago
      Not sure why you're being downvoted, you actually do have a good point... I guess people are uncomfortable with directly acknowledging that social programs are funded by "donations" that are taken by force (i.e. taxes).
      - Daishiman 6y ago
        They're not "donations". They're taxes, period. There's no moral benefit to paying them in the same way there's no moral benefit to obeying traffic laws. It's not a charity as it's not voluntary. It's the cost of playing the game.
        Retric 6y ago
        I would argue there is a moral obligation to obeying traffic laws. Historically, most societies considered maintaining social order as a moral obligation. Guest Rights and Obligations etc seem to disappear as society and governments became more effective. That’s somehow translated into the idea that not paying taxes is somehow perfectly ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitium
        laurencerowe 6y ago
        "Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty. It denotes that he is subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.
billiam 6y ago
Maimonides was a smart dude, but I must say I don't understand the highest level here: do you have to know they are about to be impoverished? If so, don't you know their identity to give them a job, a loan, or a gift? Payday lenders might qualify? Maybe I need to consult a rabbi.
- sjtindell 6y ago
  I would guess a loan is extended mostly so the one taking it can save face. Some people would choose to live on the streets rather than take a handout and a loan makes it palatable. There’s a (possibly apocryphal) story about George Clooney offering 15 friends $1,000,000 but only if they all take it, so that the friends who would say no out of pride could justify it.
- phs318u 6y ago
  This is sincerely meant, but if you consider 2 and 1, isn't that a description of progressive taxation in the modern, regulated-capitalist, social-democratic welfare state? (btw, I made that description up to try and describe the kinds of states I'm referring to. e.g. the USA once was in that category and no longer is in my view, while many European countries probably are in that category). EDIT: I'd like to point out, I'm assuming no/little corruption. i.e. the theoretical view of such a state.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    Not really; taxation is compulsory. If you steal everything I own and distribute it to try to improve other people's lives, I don't suddenly have any kind of charitable moral high ground because of where my money went, and neither would I be complicit if it were used to hire puppy hitmen or whatever evildoers like to do these days. The end effect is similar, but intent matters.
    - phs318u 6y ago
      I agree that intent matters, but insofar as a state governs with the consent of a majority (leaving aside questions of whether that consent is real), then taxation (incl. the level of taxation and its distribution e.g. welfare vs warfare) represents a broadly agreed mechanism of the state to provide the kind of safety net that OP described as levels 2 and 1. Personally, I live in such a state (not the US), that has a safety net, and am happy to contribute via taxation. Not all my fellow citizens are happy to contribute and I accept that. I earn a decent wage and don't jump through hoops to minimise my tax. At the end of the day, people vote for governments that are more or less taxing.
alex_young 6y ago
The best one in my book is number 5: 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked. Why would anything following that actually be better?
- bzbarsky 6y ago
  Just to take a specific example from the list: preventing people from becoming poor in the first place is better. How could it not be? They avoid the mental pain and stress of being poor and feeling like they are dependent on handouts to survive...
  - alex_young 6y ago
    Seems a bit subjective. How do you know that they will become poor if not for your action? If you need to do this over and over again, and we're talking about just that, it seems like giving to the poor is a pretty good algorithm.
    - bzbarsky 6y ago
      > How do you know that they will become poor if not for your action? Here's a simple example. A mine closes down. You can start giving the ex-miners money on an ongoing basis to let them keep paying their bills, maybe. Or you could fund training for them to learn a new career. How do you know they will become poor if you don't fund the training? You don't. Maybe they would have managed to change careers anyway. But chances are you are in fact helping people avoid poverty. > If you need to do this over and over again, and we're talking about just that, Ah, maybe this is the disconnect. No, we are precisely _not_ talking about doing this over and over again for any given person. Or put another way, this is the "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish" thing. The latter, if it's an option, seems evidently better to me.
      - mywittyname 6y ago
        Giving money to people is the best way to help them. It turns out that most people are generally entrepreneurial and will spend the money on what they think is the most important need for them at the moment. Maybe the person doesn't need training; maybe they already have a skill, and what they really need is some capital to buy equipment or materials to pursue that activity. This idea is behind a the success of the Earned Income Tax Credit in the USA. Giving people in need a substantial capital injection at a single point in time is a very impactful to people without the means to save.
chadash 6y ago
I haven't studied the original text myself, but I believe that #1 is slightly off. It's not necessary to do the charitable action before a person becomes impoverished. Rather, the idea is that: a) teaching a man to fish is better than giving a man a fish b) the former is also more dignified for the person receiving help This applies whether a person is going to become impoverished or is currently poor. And this idea of dignity is strong enough that it outweighs other considerations, such as anonymity on either side (of course, there's the question of whether giving someone a job anonymously is better than doing it with one or both parties' knowledge... and I don't know what Maimonides would have said).
audiometry 6y ago
It's kind of a weird escalation -- steps 8->2 incrementally make sense (the more anonymized you are, the 'better'). But then the difference between step 2 and step 1 is totally different, the distinction is no longer anonymity, but some measure of efficacy of the support.
- devcpp 6y ago
  Back in Maimonides' time it would be difficult to provide things other than a lump sum in an anonymous manner. If you employ someone, teach them a job or give them a loan they'll get to know you. So I think step 1 drops anonymity for long-term purpose.
- lr4444lr 6y ago
  I think the point is that the sustainability of preventing poverty and making someone self sufficient is nuanced and not just a simple transfer funds. It's such an improvement over the other donor -> recipient charity which _don't_ fix dependency that the anonymization and cheerfulness of the exchange doesn't even matter: fixing the core problem permanently is a higher goal by kind, not just degree.
- names_are_hard 6y ago
  Maybe the axis is not anonymity per se but the dignity preserved by the recipient. Anonymity is not the goal, it's a means to an end. And providing employment achieves that end even better than anonymity does. In this light the lower levels also make sense, each progressive level allows the recipient to feel less guilty (the donor is not annoyed that they have to help, or doesn't even need to be asked, etc). The really interesting bit here is that the levels are not about how much the donor sacrifices but how good the recipient feels.
  - audiometry 6y ago
    Excellent idea! I think you explained it.
  - mdlman 6y ago
    That's an interesting point. To add to it slightly, maybe the goal is to create a healthier community. Without the guilt or annoyance you mention, it is possible for both the donor and the recipient to maintain a positive relationship going forward (less of an ongoing power dynamic or bitterness). My guess would be that when these levels developed, most giving was within a close knit community.
andi999 6y ago
I love this. 8-2 is all about the donor (how he feels, how morally it is) and basically 1 is about the recepiant what would be best for him/her. It is like results matter most (less than the process; big corps will disagree on that)
fctorial 6y ago
How did he rank these? Some are obvious (1, 8). Can't really differentiate the rest. Any good articles about it?
- names_are_hard 6y ago
  I mentioned this in another comment, but I believe (no source, just speculation) that each progressive level does a better job helping the recipient maintain their dignity. Charity is not only about helping someone financially but also helping them feel good, too.
endymi0n 6y ago
Level one sounds suspiciously close to actually paying taxes and let the social net built on it work its magic. Now come on, downvote me to hell.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  No that's exactly it. Don't give fish. Give fishing rod, fishing right and fishing classes to people who need it. Only morons think they are better off in society full of poor oppressed people. In a was a social net system is ultimate selfish move as it lowers crime increases productivity and so on. Instead of living in permanent danger akin to current Rep of South Africa.
- zdragnar 6y ago
  Similar effect, perhaps, but different cause. Taxes aren't voluntary. You don't choose how much you owe. Not all taxes go towards improving people's lives- in the US, many safety nets only kick in once you are impoverished, and can disincentivise work. As an example, the recent coronavirus add-on payments to unemployment often meant people at the lowest levels of opportunity would make more by staying home than if they got a job. This isnt to say tax funded social nets are bad; most aren't. They certainly shouldn't be confused with charity, though.
  - secfirstmd 6y ago
    "often meant people at the lowest levels of opportunity would make more by staying home than if they got a job" Considering how low the Coronavirus add-on payments are, doesn't your point really mean that those at the bottom of the scale, where minimum rates have barely budged in the US - are vastly underpaid on a normal basis?
    - zdragnar 6y ago
      Wasn't the payout an extra $600 / week? That's equivalent of an extra $20 / hour of a 40 hour workweek after tax withholdings. Around half of income earners in the US make less than that from working, my wife's included. It should also be noted that a little over 2% only make the federal minimum wage. In fact, the NYT broke this down on a state-by-state basis: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/business/economy/unemployment-benefits-stimulus-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/business/econ... Aside from whether or not the minimum wage should be increased, it does seem to demonstrate easily enough that the stimulus is a perverse incentive. Bringing this back to the original point I was replying to, it utterly fails the definition of the top level of charity by encouraging people to become dependent on the largess of others. That's not to say it is therefore a bad thing, but it certainly isn't a reason to call paying taxes the highest level of charity.
Robotbeat 6y ago
I appreciate this kind of discussion. It's interesting to understand the moral philosophy of different cultures (and hopefully getting at some fundamental universal understanding, or at least a consensus), and it's important to talk explicitly about it. Informative and useful.
ignoramous 6y ago
> The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others. This is also pretty much one of the ways a certain Shi'a Islam community, Dawoodi Bohra, administers loans which they call Qardan Hasana (the diginifed loan). [0] https://www.thedawoodibohras.com/2020/07/16/qardan-hasana-the-good-loan/ https://www.thedawoodibohras.com/2020/07/16/qardan-hasana-th...

by 7402 6y ago

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

Muslims also have a similar tier system of giving charity, but because Islam mandates charity from its followers at a fixed rate (a flat income tax for charity), it places the "communal funds" very low in the totem pole. Actually the Prophet Muhammad said a similar thing to what Feeney has said here about wanting to give charity while alive rather than after his death: > A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Which charity is the most superior in reward?" He replied, "The charity which you practice while you are healthy, niggardly and afraid of poverty and wish to become wealthy. Do not delay it to the time of approaching death and then say, 'Give so much to such and such, and so much to such and such.' And it has already belonged to such and such (as it is too late)." https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500 https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500

acqq 6y ago
I guess Jewish "tzedakah" and Arabian "zakat" have anyway both the same linguistic root, both being Semitic languages and everything related happening in the same small part of the world (if the word itself has some other origins).
- lamida 6y ago
  There is specific arabic word for it "Sadaqah" which means charity. Zakat is actually one of the Islamic pillar about charity to purifies. There is specific percentage or amount for different zakat. Zakat is the form of charity.

rapind 6y ago

9. When the donation wouldn’t occur without a tax break.

vicda 6y ago
10. When the donation gives you favors in return.
- cm2187 6y ago
  11. When your donation is taken by force through taxes
  - winter_blue 6y ago
    Not sure why you're being downvoted, you actually do have a good point... I guess people are uncomfortable with directly acknowledging that social programs are funded by "donations" that are taken by force (i.e. taxes).
    - Daishiman 6y ago
      They're not "donations". They're taxes, period. There's no moral benefit to paying them in the same way there's no moral benefit to obeying traffic laws. It's not a charity as it's not voluntary. It's the cost of playing the game.
      - Retric 6y ago
        I would argue there is a moral obligation to obeying traffic laws. Historically, most societies considered maintaining social order as a moral obligation. Guest Rights and Obligations etc seem to disappear as society and governments became more effective. That’s somehow translated into the idea that not paying taxes is somehow perfectly ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitium
      - laurencerowe 6y ago
        "Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty. It denotes that he is subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.

billiam 6y ago

Maimonides was a smart dude, but I must say I don't understand the highest level here: do you have to know they are about to be impoverished? If so, don't you know their identity to give them a job, a loan, or a gift? Payday lenders might qualify? Maybe I need to consult a rabbi.

sjtindell 6y ago
I would guess a loan is extended mostly so the one taking it can save face. Some people would choose to live on the streets rather than take a handout and a loan makes it palatable. There’s a (possibly apocryphal) story about George Clooney offering 15 friends $1,000,000 but only if they all take it, so that the friends who would say no out of pride could justify it.
phs318u 6y ago
This is sincerely meant, but if you consider 2 and 1, isn't that a description of progressive taxation in the modern, regulated-capitalist, social-democratic welfare state? (btw, I made that description up to try and describe the kinds of states I'm referring to. e.g. the USA once was in that category and no longer is in my view, while many European countries probably are in that category). EDIT: I'd like to point out, I'm assuming no/little corruption. i.e. the theoretical view of such a state.
- hansvm 6y ago
  Not really; taxation is compulsory. If you steal everything I own and distribute it to try to improve other people's lives, I don't suddenly have any kind of charitable moral high ground because of where my money went, and neither would I be complicit if it were used to hire puppy hitmen or whatever evildoers like to do these days. The end effect is similar, but intent matters.
  - phs318u 6y ago
    I agree that intent matters, but insofar as a state governs with the consent of a majority (leaving aside questions of whether that consent is real), then taxation (incl. the level of taxation and its distribution e.g. welfare vs warfare) represents a broadly agreed mechanism of the state to provide the kind of safety net that OP described as levels 2 and 1. Personally, I live in such a state (not the US), that has a safety net, and am happy to contribute via taxation. Not all my fellow citizens are happy to contribute and I accept that. I earn a decent wage and don't jump through hoops to minimise my tax. At the end of the day, people vote for governments that are more or less taxing.

alex_young 6y ago

The best one in my book is number 5: 5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked. Why would anything following that actually be better?

bzbarsky 6y ago
Just to take a specific example from the list: preventing people from becoming poor in the first place is better. How could it not be? They avoid the mental pain and stress of being poor and feeling like they are dependent on handouts to survive...
- alex_young 6y ago
  Seems a bit subjective. How do you know that they will become poor if not for your action? If you need to do this over and over again, and we're talking about just that, it seems like giving to the poor is a pretty good algorithm.
  - bzbarsky 6y ago
    > How do you know that they will become poor if not for your action? Here's a simple example. A mine closes down. You can start giving the ex-miners money on an ongoing basis to let them keep paying their bills, maybe. Or you could fund training for them to learn a new career. How do you know they will become poor if you don't fund the training? You don't. Maybe they would have managed to change careers anyway. But chances are you are in fact helping people avoid poverty. > If you need to do this over and over again, and we're talking about just that, Ah, maybe this is the disconnect. No, we are precisely _not_ talking about doing this over and over again for any given person. Or put another way, this is the "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish" thing. The latter, if it's an option, seems evidently better to me.
    - mywittyname 6y ago
      Giving money to people is the best way to help them. It turns out that most people are generally entrepreneurial and will spend the money on what they think is the most important need for them at the moment. Maybe the person doesn't need training; maybe they already have a skill, and what they really need is some capital to buy equipment or materials to pursue that activity. This idea is behind a the success of the Earned Income Tax Credit in the USA. Giving people in need a substantial capital injection at a single point in time is a very impactful to people without the means to save.

chadash 6y ago

I haven't studied the original text myself, but I believe that #1 is slightly off. It's not necessary to do the charitable action before a person becomes impoverished. Rather, the idea is that: a) teaching a man to fish is better than giving a man a fish b) the former is also more dignified for the person receiving help This applies whether a person is going to become impoverished or is currently poor. And this idea of dignity is strong enough that it outweighs other considerations, such as anonymity on either side (of course, there's the question of whether giving someone a job anonymously is better than doing it with one or both parties' knowledge... and I don't know what Maimonides would have said).

audiometry 6y ago

It's kind of a weird escalation -- steps 8->2 incrementally make sense (the more anonymized you are, the 'better'). But then the difference between step 2 and step 1 is totally different, the distinction is no longer anonymity, but some measure of efficacy of the support.

devcpp 6y ago
Back in Maimonides' time it would be difficult to provide things other than a lump sum in an anonymous manner. If you employ someone, teach them a job or give them a loan they'll get to know you. So I think step 1 drops anonymity for long-term purpose.
lr4444lr 6y ago
I think the point is that the sustainability of preventing poverty and making someone self sufficient is nuanced and not just a simple transfer funds. It's such an improvement over the other donor -> recipient charity which _don't_ fix dependency that the anonymization and cheerfulness of the exchange doesn't even matter: fixing the core problem permanently is a higher goal by kind, not just degree.
names_are_hard 6y ago
Maybe the axis is not anonymity per se but the dignity preserved by the recipient. Anonymity is not the goal, it's a means to an end. And providing employment achieves that end even better than anonymity does. In this light the lower levels also make sense, each progressive level allows the recipient to feel less guilty (the donor is not annoyed that they have to help, or doesn't even need to be asked, etc). The really interesting bit here is that the levels are not about how much the donor sacrifices but how good the recipient feels.
- audiometry 6y ago
  Excellent idea! I think you explained it.
- mdlman 6y ago
  That's an interesting point. To add to it slightly, maybe the goal is to create a healthier community. Without the guilt or annoyance you mention, it is possible for both the donor and the recipient to maintain a positive relationship going forward (less of an ongoing power dynamic or bitterness). My guess would be that when these levels developed, most giving was within a close knit community.

andi999 6y ago

I love this. 8-2 is all about the donor (how he feels, how morally it is) and basically 1 is about the recepiant what would be best for him/her. It is like results matter most (less than the process; big corps will disagree on that)

fctorial 6y ago

How did he rank these? Some are obvious (1, 8). Can't really differentiate the rest. Any good articles about it?

names_are_hard 6y ago
I mentioned this in another comment, but I believe (no source, just speculation) that each progressive level does a better job helping the recipient maintain their dignity. Charity is not only about helping someone financially but also helping them feel good, too.

endymi0n 6y ago

Level one sounds suspiciously close to actually paying taxes and let the social net built on it work its magic. Now come on, downvote me to hell.

me_me_me 6y ago
No that's exactly it. Don't give fish. Give fishing rod, fishing right and fishing classes to people who need it. Only morons think they are better off in society full of poor oppressed people. In a was a social net system is ultimate selfish move as it lowers crime increases productivity and so on. Instead of living in permanent danger akin to current Rep of South Africa.
zdragnar 6y ago
Similar effect, perhaps, but different cause. Taxes aren't voluntary. You don't choose how much you owe. Not all taxes go towards improving people's lives- in the US, many safety nets only kick in once you are impoverished, and can disincentivise work. As an example, the recent coronavirus add-on payments to unemployment often meant people at the lowest levels of opportunity would make more by staying home than if they got a job. This isnt to say tax funded social nets are bad; most aren't. They certainly shouldn't be confused with charity, though.
- secfirstmd 6y ago
  "often meant people at the lowest levels of opportunity would make more by staying home than if they got a job" Considering how low the Coronavirus add-on payments are, doesn't your point really mean that those at the bottom of the scale, where minimum rates have barely budged in the US - are vastly underpaid on a normal basis?
  - zdragnar 6y ago
    Wasn't the payout an extra $600 / week? That's equivalent of an extra $20 / hour of a 40 hour workweek after tax withholdings. Around half of income earners in the US make less than that from working, my wife's included. It should also be noted that a little over 2% only make the federal minimum wage. In fact, the NYT broke this down on a state-by-state basis: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/business/economy/unemployment-benefits-stimulus-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/23/business/econ... Aside from whether or not the minimum wage should be increased, it does seem to demonstrate easily enough that the stimulus is a perverse incentive. Bringing this back to the original point I was replying to, it utterly fails the definition of the top level of charity by encouraging people to become dependent on the largess of others. That's not to say it is therefore a bad thing, but it certainly isn't a reason to call paying taxes the highest level of charity.

Robotbeat 6y ago

I appreciate this kind of discussion. It's interesting to understand the moral philosophy of different cultures (and hopefully getting at some fundamental universal understanding, or at least a consensus), and it's important to talk explicitly about it. Informative and useful.

ignoramous 6y ago

> The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others. This is also pretty much one of the ways a certain Shi'a Islam community, Dawoodi Bohra, administers loans which they call Qardan Hasana (the diginifed loan). [0] https://www.thedawoodibohras.com/2020/07/16/qardan-hasana-the-good-loan/ https://www.thedawoodibohras.com/2020/07/16/qardan-hasana-th...