Charity

It's not really news to talk about the hurricane that's recently hit the states.

It's probably not really news to even talk about how people in Georgia are donating and volunteering to raise money for the disaster relief.

We'll be sending up a total of 8 emergency relief vehicles up north in order to help with relief efforts. Our Home Depot centers are working on sending supplies up there as well, moving up at least 1,500 truckloads of emergency supplies. People in our state are even offering to drive these trucks without any form of payment.

It's strange how we all grasp the concept of charity. Sometimes I find it hard to define the difference between what is "good charity" and what is "bad charity". Motivation to give is, of course, always fueled by some sort of selfishness. So then does that make these people who go to the north to send supplies bad? Just because they want to feel morally superior? Yeah, I suppose on a moral level. I think that it corrupts the whole concept of what it means to give. I don't think an individual who gives millions to others in need is on a higher plane than an individual who gives their entire life savings that's comprised of only $4,000.

8 emergency vehicles don't mean a thing if they're not well intentioned. But how can I say that? As long as they're getting help, motivation is irrelevant. In the end, it really doesn't matter how or why you gave, as long as you did. And in that sense, that's all charity is.

But, of course, you can't view charity in that sense, because then you create this social status in charity. Whoever went to Africa over the summer to spend their days "helping others" got the most brownie points, as opposed to those who cut soap at local volunteer groups for homeless shelters. It becomes a competition, something impure rather than true. It puts everything only for the surface.

But the line is unclear, still. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/metro-atlanta-helps-storm-relief/nSr4K/