Rambam’s “Obligations to the Poor” from the Mishneh Torah help us understand how we should interact with the people who are less fortunate than us. As Professor Isador Twersky has said, “Maimonides’ [treatment of tzedakah] illustrates the need for sensitivity, tact, and graciousness in the act of charity. The formal, objective act of giving charity is deficient and defective if it is not characterized by kindness and sympathy.” This directly relates to the chapter in the Mishnah that we have been studying in Rabbinic Literature.
The quote said by Professor Twersky is highlighting not only the physical aspects of giving tzedakah, but also more the idea that we emotionally need to feel a certain way when giving tzedakah. We cannot just throw money at the person, but we have to be willing to help them with their exact needs, not just what we think that they need. If we decide to give to charity but not be kind about it, the giving is ineffective and it is like we have not done the mitzvah at all. We will further discuss how this relates to Rambam’s Obligations of giving to the poor below.
To begin with, halachah aleph (א) states that it is a positive commandment to give tzedakah to the poor and we should open our hands to them. We should let them live with us as if they were our brothers. In this part, Rambam is discussing that if someone is in need, we have the obligation to help them. This is a general claim; we need to be generous and help someone who is in need. This halachah relates to what was said by Professor Twersky when he discusses that we must help the poor, even though it doesn’t directly state how. Twersky is telling us that we must give to the poor; only he is being more specific in how we must feel while giving...
... middle of paper ...
...I feel bad not giving to the poor, however, I do not always know what they will do with what I give to them. In today’s society, some money that we give to them might go towards buying drugs, alcohol, or something else that they may not need. For this reason, I prefer to give through an organization that I trust so that I know the poor will be receiving the kind of help that they need and not just hoping that they will buy the right thing. This way I am also in less of a risky situation, since I do not know the person, I do not know what they are capable of doing. Rambam addresses all these concerns and explains what we should do in each situation. Next time I see a poor person, I will keep in mind what Rambam has said, as well as what Professor Twersky has described about keeping in mind how we are performing the action and how it is perceived by the poor person.
To conclude, three sets of views existed in the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries regarding the destitute. In the 1400's, the poor were treated with sympathy and charity. In the next century, the poor were regarded with suspicion and hatred, which occasionally led to abuse. By the 17th Century, charity had resumed through private citizens and religious orders, though the wealthy still regarded the idle poor as worthless and undeserving of aid. These three often-conflicting sets of views had a profound effect on the lives of the European poor: they determined how the destitute were treated and socially regarded.
In Peter Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he critiques the way in which modern societies have grown accustomed to their ordinary thoughts about famine, affluence, and morality in general. Singer describes a situation in which nine million refugees from East Bengal are living in poverty, and it is the responsibility of the wealthy, and better-off nations to take immediate and long term action to provide for them and to end poverty overall. (Singer, 873) Through his essay, Singer envisions a new world where giving to those in need is no longer seen as charity, but rather a moral duty. He states that in the world we currently live in, it is seen as generous and partaking in a good deed when you donate money to charity, and no one is blamed for not (876). Singer proposes that excess money should be given to those in need, rather than spending it in “selfish and unnecessary” ways (876).
Hooks says, “It is better to be poor than to allow another person to assert power over you in ways that are dehumanizing and cruel” (435). Weather poor or rich everyone deserves and opportunity to be successful in life and shouldn’t be stereotyped. Everyone deserves the chance to be successful in life and have the same equal opportunities. Poverty is everywhere in this world some worse than others. Living in poverty once in life it can actually be a learning experience. To see and experience the struggle gives them not only a better understanding but appreciate what they have.
Since I spoke about rich people, I should talk about poor people. I feel compassion, admiration, and generous when it comes to poor people. I feel they have a rough life but always tend to put on a smile and look happy. I always want to be kind and friendly to poor people and make them feel like they have a friend who will help and support them if needed. I think poor people are kind and generous. I previously said that rich people are stingy about their money, but poor people are the exact opposite. Even though they lack mone...
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
Most people feel that they should help the needy in some way or another. The problem is how to help them. This problem generally arises when there is a person sitting on the side of the road in battered clothes with a cardboard sign asking for some form of help, almost always in the form of money. Yet something makes the giver uneasy. What will they do with this money? Do they need this money? Will it really help them? The truth of the matter is, it won't. However, there are things that can be done to help the needy. Giving money to a reliable foundation will help the helpless, something that transferring money from a pocket to a man's tin can will never do.
8.Besides for giving money, how else may one give Tzedakah? (Give at least two concrete examples).For one to give Tzedakah besides giving money you can do stuff for the poor. You could work in a soup kitchen and give for to the poor. Also one can give Tzedakah by doing other stuff for the poor like building homes for the poor or going down and giving clothes to them.
People are starving all over the world. They lack food, water, and basic medication. Some suggest that the wealthy should donate and do their part to help. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, wrote an article called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” in The New York Times Magazine, in which he suggests that the prosperous people should donate all money not needed for the basic requirements of life.
Arthur says that “no one has a unique status” (Arthur 708) when it comes to pain, that it is all equal, however the difference is that you can feel your own pain and even that of those close to you. Therefore, it is obvious that we would sacrifice saving more famine victims in faraway countries to allow for our family to live more comfortable lives, distant from the poverty line. However, it is still in our nature to be generous and giving, therefore it is looked amicably upon when people are charitable. Furthermore, it is generally not taught to children from a young age that it is imperative to give large amounts to sufferers in faraway countries. Instead, children learn to stay away from strangers, that they are threatening and untrustworthy, therefore we are cautious beings. To provide an excessive amount of personal resources to faraway countries in order to relieve drastic suffering takes a consequentialist view. It would drive people to living their lives always looking ahead, at how to maximise gains and most effectively give away these gains. Their lives would subsequently become worthless, living only to better others’ lives, being likened to slavery. This would surely lead to a variety of problems, suicide, for one. For if everyone’s purpose on earth is to help the suffering, and those
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. This is the first Beatitude. It tells us that we should accept people for who they are and not the material things they have. You should not treat a person who lives in a nice house and drives a nice car any different then someone who lives in a less desirable house and drives an old car. You should treat everyone how you would like to be treated. Just because someone can not afford some of the things as you might be able to does not mean that they are a bad person. We should accept everyone into our community.
In conclusion, giving can make our lives more meaningful; however, I think that just contributing resources to the third world is not effective in solving poverty problem as the structural root causes that create hunger and poverty are still remain. Thus, it is not always wrong to not donate.
I occasionally do not feel sorry for them because instead of standing on the streets, they could go out and search for job opportunities if they really wanted to get off the streets. Another reason as to why we shouldn’t be obligated is that, some poor and homeless people on the streets are out there because of drug and alcohol abuse. It is a possibility that they are broke because they have spent all of their money on drugs and alcohol. If we give them our money, there is a big chance that they will just use it towards drugs and
In the excerpt “Rich and Poor,” from Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics,” Singer critiques how he portrays the way we respond to both absolute poverty and absolute affluence. Before coming to this class, I have always believed that donating or giving something of your own to help someone else is a moral decision. After reading Peter Singer’s argument that we are obligated to assist extreme poverty, I remain with the same beliefs I previously had. I will argue that Singer’s argument is not convincing. I will demonstrate that there are important differences between being obligated to save a small child from drowning (in his Shallow Pond example) and being obligated to assist absolute poverty. These differences restrict his argument by analogy
...esult, the more directly one sees their personal efforts impact someone else, the more happiness one can gain from the experience of giving. Sometimes generosity requires pushing past a feeling of reluctance because people all instinctively want to keep good things for themselves, but once one is over this feeling, they will feel satisfaction in knowing that they have made a difference in someone else’s life. However, if one lives without generosity but is not selfish, they can still have pleasure from other virtues.
In the excerpt “Rich and Poor” from Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics,” Singer critiques how he portrays the way we respond to both absolute poverty and absolute affluence. Before coming to this class, I have always believed that donating or giving something of your own to help someone else is a moral decision. After reading Peter Singer’s argument that we are obligated to assist extreme poverty, I remain with the same beliefs I previously had. I will argue that Singer’s argument is not convincing. I will demonstrate that there are important differences between being obligated to save a small child from drowning (in his Shallow Pond Example) and being obligated to assist absolute poverty. These differences restrict his argument by analogy for the obligation to assist in the case of absolute poverty.