Most generosity is found where there is most freedom

  Some people divide us all into two groups, the greedy and the altruists. This is a really simplistic way to understand human beings. We are, in fact, motivated by a variety of habits and convictions.

  By the most credible prominent account of human morality, that of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, as we are properly raised by our family and neighbors we learn to practice several important moral virtues, such as courage, honesty, prudence and generosity.

 These are all supportive of the best possible life for a human being. An ethical youngster will grow up with all of these well-cultivated by his or her elders. As we grow to adulthood, we would take over the habituation of the virtues in ourselves so we'd act decently and morally without even having to deliberate about it all the time.

  There are other views on morality, of course, but Aristotle's is arguably the most humane and sensible. Immanuel Kant, the very influential 18th century German philosopher, believed that morality must always be disinterested. You need to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing, and if you even like doing it, it no longer counts as morally worthy.

  The more realistic Aristotle believed that the reason for cultivating these virtues in all of us is to further our human flourishing. In the end we ourselves will benefit most from being morally good. That includes being honest, courageous, charitable and so on, not just when we are being prudent.

  Which brings us to generosity and charity, moral virtues that guide a person to act benevolently toward others. We are all social - to be fully human is, in part, to be integrated with others, though not indiscriminately. (A good person doesn't seek a thief or liar to be his or her close friend.)

  A good person will definitely make sure that others are treated decently and, when the need arises, compassionately, kindly, generously. Even though one can be generous to a fault - by recklessly spreading one's limited resources - an ethical individual is heedful of people in dire straits, especially when they became so faultlessly.

  In all of this Aristotle did seem to give less emphasis than he should have to something that Kant, in contrast, was firm about. This is that doing the morally right thing requires that one do it freely, of one's own initiative and conviction, not by being forced, coerced or even nudged to do it (a policy being prominently promoted today). Encouragement is fine, since one might choose to go against it, but coercion is not since it wipes out choice, freedom of the will.

  Charity, philanthropy, compassion, kindness and benevolence toward people must stem from the choices of the benefactors. Anything else is a reactionary attitude whereby the needs of some become excuses for certain people to lord it over others.

  Often when one makes these points one is questioned about the practicality of leaving good deeds toward those who need it to voluntary choice. And it is sometimes pointed out that many helping institutions and organizations do obtain their funds by coercive means. Doesn't this prove that the idea of people helping one another freely, without being forced to do so, is a dream, a vain hope?

  Unfortunately some very bad habits have been instilled on nearly all of humanity over centuries of being subjugated, robbed of sovereignty and free will. It takes some time to acquire the traits of character of a free human adult. Human psychology cannot be simply turned around after centuries of mistreatment - we all know this from personal cases.

  But just because it takes some time to adjust to the fact of our mature humanity - that it involves, among many other matters, taking on the responsibility of helping others who are in special need - it doesn't make it impractical.

  If all the energy expanded on forcing people to support others - support that is considerably depleted by the coercive powers skimming off a goodly portion of it for themselves - were to be spent on persuading and imploring people to be helpful, to foster generosity within themselves and others, the culture of freely giving would very likely have a decent chance in any society.

  Already the most generous people live in the freest of societies. Those are the people for whom it is nearly second nature to reach for their wallets when they learn of a tsunami or Hurricane Katrina, when they encounter devastation caused either by other people or by wild nature.

  Just as politics has, over the centuries, slowly moved away from authoritarianism, paternalism and similar forms of tyranny, so other aspects of human social life can develop toward free associations among people instead of coercive ones, even when there is an emergency. A free society is, I submit, a far more generous one than one where some people take it upon themselves to rule others.

---
Tibor Machan holds the R.C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at Chapman University and is a research fellow at the Pacific Research Institute and Hoover Institution (Stanford). He advises Freedom Communications, parent company of this newspaper. E-mail him at Machan@link.freedom.com.