While I have obvious disagreements with Penn Jillette with regard to religion, I think his take on “government charity” is right on. Here is Jillette’s quote (found in several places on the internet):
“It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give
poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
“People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.”
Jesus talked a lot about loving our neighbors, including caring for those in need. But He never projected that ethic onto the government, and I think for good reason: it doesn’t work. When we try to assign the government to do our compassion, even in America where the government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people and for the people” (at least according to Abraham Lincoln), we remove from our own personal obligation the need to be compassionate people. As Jillette says, “if we’re compassionate we’ll help them” not vote that others help them.
This is very difficult for people to comprehend, because the government is BIG, and if we want to accomplish BIG things, we get the government involved, right?
There is a distinct difference in quality, if not quantity, when we’re talking about compassion, charity, good works, etc. in relation to government vs. individuals. When a neighbor is in need, it is fundamentally different for me to take on the role of compassionately helping them then it is for the government to do so. Both might address the need, but only the neighbor can show compassion. A government program cannot show compassion, precisely because it is, by necessity, impersonal. No matter how compassionate the government WORKER might be, the actual help provided by the government cannot be compassionate. So when we vote to have government money given to people in need, we may do so out of compassionate intent, but the result is not compassion. Again, using Jillette’s quote, by forcing others “at gunpoint” to likewise provide funds (taxation is enforced, ultimately, by police with guns) is not compassion; it “is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.”
I understand Dorothy Day also made the point that when the government takes over charitable work, the individual is no longer inclined to do so. I couldn’t find the quote, but Day’s reference was noted by others. I believe that as our government takes on more and more of the “compassion” work, we individuals will take on less and less.
Coerced compassion is not compassion at all; it is coercion.
There are parts of this post with which I agree, but there is an overall theme that troubles me. We do not have a healthy US or global economy. I am not an economist, but individual consumerism and corporate greed seem to be key factors. There are justice issues that need to be resolved as well as individuals taking responsibility for acts of compassion. Is every attempt by government to do acts of compassion just coercion?
Frank, I don’t think I did a very good job of explaining myself. I suppose my main point is that governments CANNOT be compassionate, because governments must be objective and fair. Compassion is not the same thing as justice, and, in fact, one could argue that justice is the lack of compassion. Compassion is subjective, and more related to grace than justice. We are instructed to be compassionate (although I’m not sure that word is ever used). That instruction does not translate to government, nor to a large group of any sort. Compassion is an individual (or, at most, a small group) virtue.
My point is that some think that they are “doing” compassion when they vote for welfare-esque measures (or politicians who champion welfare-esque measures). And SOME people, when the government steps in and starts providing funds or other resources to people in need, step back from acting in compassionate ways toward their neighbors, thinking that the government will “take care” of their needs, so they (the person thinking this) doesn’t have to. Coercion enters in when people, who would not ordinarily voluntarily give to people in need are forced to by the tax laws. In a democracy, that may or may not be appropriate. All I am saying is that it is NOT compassion.
There is an interesting article about Dorothy Day to this effect at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/finnigan3.html asking the question, “Was Dorothy Day a Libertarian?”
Glen, I think I understand better. I am reading Karen Armstrong, 12 steps to a compassionate life. I am realizing how little I have tried to understand what compassion involves. Your post is very timely for me!
I agree that compassion is not justice. I need to think through the relationships among objective, fair, subjective, unfair, justice, mercy, and compassion. Will comment after some more thinking.