“‘Thus I believe that true generosity, which causes a person’s self-esteem to be as great as it may legitimately be, has only two components. The first consists in his knowing that nothing truly belongs to him but this freedom to dispose his volitions...The second consists in his feeling within himself a firm and constant resolution to use it well - that is, never to lack the will to undertake and carry out whatever he judges to be best’” (94).
Descartes’ description of generosity is the one I find most thought-provoking and which encompasses, for me, the basics of what the whole chapter is saying. C-S goes beyond the definition of a generous act as we all know it and delves deeper into what enables or disables us to act generously, what generosity truly means, and the amazing power of this seemingly simple virtue. C-S agrees with Descartes that freedom is a key aspect in being able to act generously, because one must be free from selfishness, desires, attachment to possessions--simply put, ourselves. C-S also goes to great lengths to explain that generosity is not the same as justice, solidarity, or especially love. “‘Act well and rejoice,’ Spinoza writes; love is the goal and generosity the road to it” (101). C-S finally leaves us with an interesting conclusion of the multiple identities and forms of generosity: “Combined with courage, it turns out to be heroism. Joined by justice, it becomes equity. Coupled with compassion, it becomes benevolence. In league with mercy, it becomes leniency. But its most beautiful name is its secret, an open secret that everyone knows: accompanied by gentleness, it is called kindness” (102). That last line is one of my favorites in the whole chapter.
Some questions that came to mind throughout this chapter were: Why do you think people like to use the word solidarity instead of what they actually mean (equality, justice, etc.)? Do you agree with the author that one can be generous without love? Do you agree with the author’s interpretation of the love commandment in the Bible- that we should act as though we love everyone as ourselves because we can’t actually love everyone as ourselves? What did you think about the author’s stance on loving one’s children much more than loving other people’s children as a kind of selfishness?
Generosity is the seventh virtue that we have studied thus far, and I must admit that I am beginning to see a certain pattern emerge. Whether by Comte-Sponville or another esteemed author, there is mention in every chapter that the virtue being discussed is the precursor to all virtues, the one without which no others can exist. We see this argument made by Descartes on page 94: “And because they [those who are generous] esteem nothing more highly than doing good to others and disregarding their own self-interest, they are always perfectly courteous, gracious, and obliging to everyone. Moreover they have complete command over their passions.” Descartes thus considered generosity to be the source of all virtues. While I certainly feel that generosity belongs within C-S’s treatise, I simply cannot ascribe to it as great a degree of importance.
On page 94, C-S states that “Generosity is both the awareness of one’s own freedom…and the firm resolution to make good use of the freedom.” As much as I contemplated this concept, I still don’t understand it. Is generosity really that complicated? I much prefer the discussion of generosity found earlier in the chapter, when C-S says that “generosity entails giving the other person what is not his but yours, which he lacks.” In my opinion, generosity is the act of giving and nothing more. Whether we do so because we truly enjoy it or because we feel morally compelled makes no difference to the people receiving what we give; they benefit from our generosity regardless of our motivations for giving.
Much as I did for justice, I found a contradiction in C-S’s definition of generosity. On page 90, he mentions that giving food to children in the Third World in order to ensure peace is not generous, but merely lucid and prudent. This goes against my definition of generosity discussed in the previous paragraph. On page 97, however, C-S brings the commandment to “love thy neighbor” into discussion. Because we cannot control who we love, C-S argues that loving our neighbor is impossible. We must thus ACT as though we love them, and be generous to them accordingly. This implies that actions alone are virtuous, and are thus independent of the motivating forces behind them.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting C-S, and I certainly don’t mean to diminish the importance of generosity; especially in a society that could certainly stand to gain from more. But do you also agree that there is a contradiction in its definition? Should we consider the thoughts behind generous actions, or only be concerned with the actions themselves?
I really found comparing generosity to love interesting; namely, that generosity is a constant desire while love is a steady state of joy. I think this answers Andrea's last question. To be generous, we should only be concerned with action and let the thoughts be unto themselves. If we think about our motives for generosity, then we become one of two things. On one hand, we become overwhelmed with the demands of generosity and see it as a chore. This will only lead us into despair because we will always want the chore to be over and by definition, generosity only ends where love begins. And if Sponville is correct in saying that we cannot force ourselves to love and feel like we have lost our selfishness, then we always be trying to do more and more generosity to make us feel love and never become satisfied.
The other possibilty is that we become too unsure of ourselves about who to be generous towards, and it becomes a matter either fraught with self-interest and fear. If generosity's purpose is to lead us to love, then picking out which neighbors (which has been describes as everybody) to treat like ourselves is not pure love at all.
Rather, we should not analyze our own motives and just give. If we think about it, we will hesitate or give partially. If we think about it, it does not become second nature and a part of our being. Only when giving becomes second nature does generosity becomes love.
To answer one of Kaylan's questions, solidarity is a much more popular word than generosity because solidarity is abstract. When I request the definition of "solidarity," the dictionary states, "unity and agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest" Solidarity has indeed been politicized into a nice, clean, warm feeling. Feelings are safe, and they make us feel safe. Agreement likewise makes us feel comfortable with the status quo in our lives, that we can walk hand in hand with everybody and make everybody our friend. It seems easy. Solidarity is also a collective noun, and it does not press the duty of helping others on any particular person. Therefore, everybody can easily assume that everyone else is doing their share, and therefore, one individual does not have to do very much.
Generosity is about action, not feelings, and therefore, it is unpopular. It is also an individual virtue that requires each person to act for the good of the community, rather than the abstract community helping itself.
"Generosity is the virtue of giving...generosity entails giving the other person what is not his but yours, which he lacks." (86) Comte-Sponville's opening remarks aligned perfectly with my understanding of the virtue of generosity prior to reading this treatise. Generosity, to me, was all about love, and being selfless. Generosity to me was the giving of yourself to help others. However, C-S quotes Jankelevitch within this chapter, "Certainly, generosity might not involve love." (92) This, to me, seems absurd. How could one who gives simply out of obligation or to escape guilt be considered virtuous? Simply giving to fulfill a promise or pledge is not generosity in my opinion, but is simply following orders and going through the motions. True generosity, in order to be considered a virtue, must be coupled with love. Generosity without love and passion is not a virtue. Does any one agree?
in accordance with my thoughts above, I also tend to disagree with C-S's idea that we cannot truly follow the biblical commandment to "love our neighbor as ourself." C-S questions, "If we could, what would be the point of generosity?" (97) As mentioned above, I do not believe that generosity and love can be separated. Generosity is an outpouring of love. Generosity must therefore be coupled with love. I do not believe that God would command something that we are not capable of.
We all have the capacity to love others as ourself, but God never promised that it would be easy. I fully disagree with C-S's assertion that "Love is not in our power and never can be." (96) Just like any other virtue, love is something that we must work at. Out of this love, we will be generous as an expression of our emotions and care. This command is not to act and be generous without necessarily loving--that would be, once again, just going through the motions and being fake. This command, to me, does, in fact, suggest that we should be generous to others, but that is not the entirety of the commandment. This generosity should simply be an outward expression of inner love, as I believe it is impossible to have one without the other.
Karlie wrote that Generosity without love isn’t virtuous. But isn’t C-S’ point that sometimes we just don’t love the other, and yet we are still called to be generous. We can strive to love others (that’s what the Christian injunction is really about, right?), but sometimes we fail. I think C-S is saying that you must always be generous, even without love. Love is a feeling, a disposition, something perhaps generated in relationship with another? Can I love someone I don’t know? I think not, but easily I can be generous with someone I don’t know.
Andrea wrote about justice and material goods. What would I give up of my material comforts for justice? Does this mean sharing food? My home? Giving up my car to buy food or other necessities for someone in need? On one level we can talk about sharing what material wealth we have. But we could also think more generally, abstractly, broadly about taxation, what governmental policies we do or do not support, what charities we want to consistently and substantially support, and what of our time and talent we commit to the service of justice.
Just trying to broaden the response (or perhaps am trying to justify my lifestyle choices???).
I especially liked what C-S said on page 87: “generosity does not mean acting in accordance with this or that document or law; it means doing more then what the law requires.” This shows that those who go above and beyond are being generous. This is evident in those who do community service, or volunteer in anyway. They are going above and beyond what their community, or scholarship, etc are asking them to do.
On page 92, C-S quotes Jankelevitch, “certainly, generosity might not involve love, but love is almost inevitable generous, at least toward the loved one and for the time that the love lasts.” I read this and literally thought “yes.” You can definitely be generous towards people and your community, etc without loving all of them, or even loving what you are doing to help them. But when you are in a relationship and you love someone, you give yourself to them. You are generous with your heart, and your wallet, and your time. If you love someone, you might even give your life for him or her. And this does not only pertain to couple relationships, but to family and friends too. If you love them, you are willing to do almost anything for them. I would give up my life for my little sister and have no regrets about it. I would do anything for Sara in a heart beat (as long as it wasn’t illegal of course).
In response to Kaylan’s question:
I do agree that you can be generous without love. I can be generous to a homeless person by giving them money without loving them. I can be generous to a co-worker by covering their shift without loving them. Etc.
"Generosity, as I said, is the virtue of giving--giving money (whereby it touches on liberality) or giving of oneself (whereby it touches on magnanimity or even sacrifice). But we can give only what we possess and only on condition of not being possessed by what we own". I thing it goes without saying that it is obvious to give away things that we do not possess is a fairly easy task, but to give away our own possessions-money we worked hard to make, objects that we have bought, food that we made, etc)-this is much harder to do which makes doing so a virtue. I would not have as difficult a time giving away someone else's money to a charity, but when it comes to my minimum wage paycheck that I work to get, it is a bit harder. By making the sacrifice though, and looking past oneself to see others' needs and meeting those needs, one is acting with generosity. Another example would be that concerning time. Time is very precious, and we only have so much of it in a day. Humans are busy creatures, and I think our culture especially today is constantly on the go. We try to cram as many things as possible into our day and are always in a hurry which makes giving our time to others' hard. It is important to keep in mind that time is one of the most valuable things you can give to another because time in itself is so precious. It is generous to willingly give up our time in order to serve others when we do not get anything in return. If we received something in return, such as money or a favor from the recipient, in my mind the act would lose its luster because I don't consider that to be very generous. To me, human beings can be selfish and try to find out how to get the most for themselves. By making the sacrifice and doing something free of charge, this is what makes the act truly special.
Another interesting point the C-S makes is that generosity is different from love. It is easy for us to do things for those we love for that very reason, we love them. It is more difficult to do things for those whom we have no emotional tie to. While we are taught to love our neighbors as ourselves, we do not truly "love" everyone in the whole world as we love ourselves or relatives and friends. It is much harder, maybe impossible, to truly love a stranger. Therefore, doing something for that person without compensation would be acting out of generosity rather than love.
"Generosity elevates us toward others, as it were, and toward ourselves as beings freed from the pettiness that is the self" (102).
The quote that I believed summed up this chapter well was “to be generous is to be free of self, of one’s petty little deeds and possessions, one’s little resentments and jealousies” (95). I think that this is a lesson that we all should learn in the heavily materialistic culture that we live in today.
Generosity is more than simply giving possessions to those in need to help them, it is also a type of temperament and I found this point to be interesting. Throughout the entire book so far C-S has done an excellent job of showing that these virtues are not only what we think them to mean, but that there is a deeper all-encompassing meaning that is equally important. In my opinion, this is what I find to be the biggest thing that I am able to take away from the Treatise as a whole so far.
To answer Kaylan’s question, in my opinion, the term solidarity is used instead of words like equality and justice because it implies a common identity. That we are standing in solidarity not necessary for equality’s sake but because we are all a group with something in common. As C-S puts it, “one group’s victory is also the other’s, or an action taken against any one of us, different from us though he or she may be – is an attack against us all” (88). Equality and justice are more about protecting common rights that are fundamental to everyone. Solidarity is more about the common identity, brotherhood and standing as one.
As we have encountered before I find it hard to see a virtue as important as others when it is subjective. When discussing courage. Ellen brought up the point that if you are never put in a situation where you are called to act courageously, then you will never be able to possess the virtue of courage. I feel that generosity is subjective in a similar way. C-S states, “We can give only what we possess and only on condition of not being possessed by what we own” (93). If you are not a person with excess means to survive then you will not be able to be generous. If a person is poor, starving, ill and totally dependent on others, I feel that they are unable to be generous. My question is, If one is not able to be generous with their time or excess goods, can they possess the virtue of generosity?
I agree with C-S that you can be generous without truly loving someone. I don’t think it is possible to love strangers (even though I think it is always the goal to act* as though we love them), but I know that it is possible to be generous with strangers. And I believe that it is still important. Whenever I think of loving strangers I think in terms of empathy—isn’t that person just like my friend, my sister, or myself? Or I could imagine that is the case. Wouldn’t you be more likely to be kind to someone who looks just like your little sister because it is easier to imagine that it is your little sister in that position? I know I find myself doing things like this, even though it doesn’t logically make much sense. But it is absolutely possible to be generous to strangers—anyone who donates to charity or gives a homeless person some money is being generous, going over and above what they must do. I love this aspect of generosity as a virtue—the idea that it is over and above. Sometimes I think religion focuses too much on the “do nots,” that kind of logic of the 10 commandments. But people forget that people like Jesus did not focus on the do nots. In fact, he focused on positive things to do, and not to beat yourself up too much if you make mistakes and sin sometimes. In my mind, better to be a generous person and go over and above what you absolutely must do and sometimes make mistakes and hurt people, rather than never be generous and also never make mistakes. I also agree with C-S in his section about “for though we can give without loving, it is almost impossible to love without giving.” As I said before, the fact that we give to strangers proves this true. But, he also seems to think that love supersedes generosity to such an extent that when you love someone, you aren’t being truly generous to them because it is not a conscious decision to be generous, but rather an unconscious decision based on the fact that you love them. Now, here is where I start to disagree with them, although I’m wondering if it’s about a difference of opinion between what love means. He seems to be talking about some absolutely perfect love that exists somewhere out there—and I don’t think that exists between humans ever. I love my brother and sister, but there are many times when I just do not want to give them that last cup of coffee! That’s mine! But if I were to be in a better mood that day and let them have it, I would be making a conscious decision to be generous. I, for one, believe that just because there are days when that cup of coffee is mine, this doesn’t mean that I don’t love them.
"Generosity elevates us toward others, as it were, and toward ourselves as beings freed from the pettiness that is the self" (102). (posted by Kelsey, obviously quoting C-S). I cannot help but notice the wording of this quote; genorosity elevates us towards others. Kind of ironic, after talking about justice mean legality and, more importantly, equality. Its as if the quote's wording assumes that you view yourslef as below others, just saying. On the philosophical note, anyway, this makes complete and total sense. Generosity can be seen as a social interaction, which, by proxy, helps you reach out and make connections to others. In addition, as Buddhism puts it, "'I've got wealth.' This is the way a fool brings suffering on himself. He does not even own himself, so how can he have wealth?" By enjoying people instead of excess of materials, you free yourself from the consumerist process.
On the note of being generous without love, I can't help but wonder if we are taking the word "love" too literally/strongly. There are not many people in the world whom I would ascribe the word "loved" to in refernce to my feelings towards them. However, out of a simple love of life and interacting with people, I will act generously. So perhaps a more subtle, indirect interpertation of the word love can be applied here and say that love is, in fact, a key part/incentive towards generosity. For those of you who answered, no you don't need love to be generous, I ask, what then is your incentive? You may answer, doing it just to do it, its the "right" thing to do, etc. etc. I feel as if those are just the tip of the metaphorical iceberg of the reason why you act generously, the lower half being some form of "love". The word love, as a side note, is overly romanticized.
I disagree with C-S--I think it is impossible to be generous without loving someone. I think love can be a confusing word, but I think it is possible to "love your neighbor" without loving ALL of your neighbor. I love everyone in this class, but I don't love everything about everybody in this class. There are people I dislike. Yet I am, at times, generous towards them anyway. Why? I think it is because while I generally dislike that person, there is enough about them I love (if only our shared humanity), to make me generous towards them.
I think with anything, one of the most important things to consider is the motive behind the action. What motive does generosity spring from? If we do it for the simple moral satisfaction of knowing we are generous, then that is not truly generosity, but rather an attempt to buy virtue. And obviously, doing "generous" things out of prudence, such as buying Third World countries food to ensure peace, isn't truly generous. (Or is it?)
C-S says that if we can't love everyone, we should ACT as though we love them. That makes me wonder--if we constantly act as though we love people, at what point does the acting become love? I mean, if we do nothing but loving things to a person, how can it be said we do not love them? And what percentage of an action must be motivated by love before we accept that that virtuous act is motivated by love? If I can't love a beggar I give money to because I don't know him well enough to love him, can the action be motivated by love after five minutes conversation? Ten minutes?
Now, maybe C-S is talking about a different kind of love, where you have to really get to know the loved person's character and have a very full understanding of that person. In that case, generosity is not motivated by love. But I think that generally, generosity flows out of that emotion most of us define as love.
Generosity – that virtue that asks us to go above and beyond what is essential, and as Compte-Sponville noted, a necessity in forming and maintaining friendships and experiencing love. It asks us to reach beyond the law, justice and mere societal norms and do or give something extra, something more than what is asked of us.
C-S brings up the idea that one can be generous without love. As we discussed in class and as has been mentioned on this blog, I must disagree with C-S when he states that one can be generous without love. I think I have generally the same view as Karlie, that there can be different levels of love and that there is an underlying love for humanity that exists within us that leads us to be generous to strangers as well as to our closest friends and family. Being generous with the latter group enables us to get closer to the perfect love of certain individuals in that one can be generous without even thinking about it. As C-S described, we are generous with our friends because it is just a natural response to our close interactions with them and love for them. However, even if we are not generous to strangers in the same familiar way we are with our friends, it is not necessarily because we don’t love them. We do not personally know strangers, but we can still love them, even if we got to know them and did not like them, we could still love them. Thus, it seems to me that generosity is an outpouring of love, and without love, true generosity cannot exist. Whether it be a close love for a specific individual or a general love for humankind, love still exists, and I argue must exist, in order for generosity to be valued in a virtuous sense. For, would someone give something extra to another if he or she did not have any love at all? Perhaps if one was forced, he or she would be “generous” without loving. But then, would it really be generosity?
I agree with C-S when he says that we can be generous without love. In my opinion, normal people (not saying that Karlie is abnormal in a bad way) do not an underlying love for all humans. In general, people tend to dislike and be mistrustful of people until they have a reason to love them. There is not any instinctive desire to love them. Luckily for the Salvation Army, we live in a Christian society where we are taught to "love our neighbors" and "feed the hungry." But I think that it is more out of a sense of religious duty and hope that the giver will be rewarded in the Afterlife that most people are generous, than a sense of love for the world population. Another point on generosity is that I don't think that it counts as generosity unless it hurts a little bit to give. For example, if I have fifty dollars, and I give somebody five of them, I just gave them ten percent of my money. That’s pretty generous. But if Bill Gates is walking down the street and gives a homeless guy $100, I don't view that as generosity. It did not hurt Bill at all to do that. Sure, he helped the guy out, but it didn't put Bill out at all. I on the other hand, gave up a substantially larger amount of my money, even though it was a lot less than what Bill gave. It's like diving off a high board into a pool, and diving out of an airplane to skydive. Somebody who is seriously afraid of heights and jumps off the high board, is in my opinion, more courageous than somebody who loves being high up who skydives. I think virtues are measured by how much effort it takes to perform them, not what "quantity" of the virtue the person puts out. JJ Ruwe
“‘Thus I believe that true generosity, which causes a person’s self-esteem to be as great as it may legitimately be, has only two components. The first consists in his knowing that nothing truly belongs to him but this freedom to dispose his volitions...The second consists in his feeling within himself a firm and constant resolution to use it well - that is, never to lack the will to undertake and carry out whatever he judges to be best’” (94).
ReplyDeleteDescartes’ description of generosity is the one I find most thought-provoking and which encompasses, for me, the basics of what the whole chapter is saying. C-S goes beyond the definition of a generous act as we all know it and delves deeper into what enables or disables us to act generously, what generosity truly means, and the amazing power of this seemingly simple virtue. C-S agrees with Descartes that freedom is a key aspect in being able to act generously, because one must be free from selfishness, desires, attachment to possessions--simply put, ourselves. C-S also goes to great lengths to explain that generosity is not the same as justice, solidarity, or especially love. “‘Act well and rejoice,’ Spinoza writes; love is the goal and generosity the road to it” (101). C-S finally leaves us with an interesting conclusion of the multiple identities and forms of generosity: “Combined with courage, it turns out to be heroism. Joined by justice, it becomes equity. Coupled with compassion, it becomes benevolence. In league with mercy, it becomes leniency. But its most beautiful name is its secret, an open secret that everyone knows: accompanied by gentleness, it is called kindness” (102). That last line is one of my favorites in the whole chapter.
Some questions that came to mind throughout this chapter were: Why do you think people like to use the word solidarity instead of what they actually mean (equality, justice, etc.)? Do you agree with the author that one can be generous without love? Do you agree with the author’s interpretation of the love commandment in the Bible- that we should act as though we love everyone as ourselves because we can’t actually love everyone as ourselves? What did you think about the author’s stance on loving one’s children much more than loving other people’s children as a kind of selfishness?
These are just some thoughts! :) Blog away!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGenerosity is the seventh virtue that we have studied thus far, and I must admit that I am beginning to see a certain pattern emerge. Whether by Comte-Sponville or another esteemed author, there is mention in every chapter that the virtue being discussed is the precursor to all virtues, the one without which no others can exist. We see this argument made by Descartes on page 94: “And because they [those who are generous] esteem nothing more highly than doing good to others and disregarding their own self-interest, they are always perfectly courteous, gracious, and obliging to everyone. Moreover they have complete command over their passions.” Descartes thus considered generosity to be the source of all virtues. While I certainly feel that generosity belongs within C-S’s treatise, I simply cannot ascribe to it as great a degree of importance.
ReplyDeleteOn page 94, C-S states that “Generosity is both the awareness of one’s own freedom…and the firm resolution to make good use of the freedom.” As much as I contemplated this concept, I still don’t understand it. Is generosity really that complicated? I much prefer the discussion of generosity found earlier in the chapter, when C-S says that “generosity entails giving the other person what is not his but yours, which he lacks.” In my opinion, generosity is the act of giving and nothing more. Whether we do so because we truly enjoy it or because we feel morally compelled makes no difference to the people receiving what we give; they benefit from our generosity regardless of our motivations for giving.
Much as I did for justice, I found a contradiction in C-S’s definition of generosity. On page 90, he mentions that giving food to children in the Third World in order to ensure peace is not generous, but merely lucid and prudent. This goes against my definition of generosity discussed in the previous paragraph. On page 97, however, C-S brings the commandment to “love thy neighbor” into discussion. Because we cannot control who we love, C-S argues that loving our neighbor is impossible. We must thus ACT as though we love them, and be generous to them accordingly. This implies that actions alone are virtuous, and are thus independent of the motivating forces behind them.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting C-S, and I certainly don’t mean to diminish the importance of generosity; especially in a society that could certainly stand to gain from more. But do you also agree that there is a contradiction in its definition? Should we consider the thoughts behind generous actions, or only be concerned with the actions themselves?
I really found comparing generosity to love interesting; namely, that generosity is a constant desire while love is a steady state of joy. I think this answers Andrea's last question. To be generous, we should only be concerned with action and let the thoughts be unto themselves. If we think about our motives for generosity, then we become one of two things. On one hand, we become overwhelmed with the demands of generosity and see it as a chore. This will only lead us into despair because we will always want the chore to be over and by definition, generosity only ends where love begins. And if Sponville is correct in saying that we cannot force ourselves to love and feel like we have lost our selfishness, then we always be trying to do more and more generosity to make us feel love and never become satisfied.
ReplyDeleteThe other possibilty is that we become too unsure of ourselves about who to be generous towards, and it becomes a matter either fraught with self-interest and fear. If generosity's purpose is to lead us to love, then picking out which neighbors (which has been describes as everybody) to treat like ourselves is not pure love at all.
Rather, we should not analyze our own motives and just give. If we think about it, we will hesitate or give partially. If we think about it, it does not become second nature and a part of our being. Only when giving becomes second nature does generosity becomes love.
To answer one of Kaylan's questions, solidarity is a much more popular word than generosity because solidarity is abstract. When I request the definition of "solidarity," the dictionary states, "unity and agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest" Solidarity has indeed been politicized into a nice, clean, warm feeling. Feelings are safe, and they make us feel safe. Agreement likewise makes us feel comfortable with the status quo in our lives, that we can walk hand in hand with everybody and make everybody our friend. It seems easy. Solidarity is also a collective noun, and it does not press the duty of helping others on any particular person. Therefore, everybody can easily assume that everyone else is doing their share, and therefore, one individual does not have to do very much.
Generosity is about action, not feelings, and therefore, it is unpopular. It is also an individual virtue that requires each person to act for the good of the community, rather than the abstract community helping itself.
"Generosity is the virtue of giving...generosity entails giving the other person what is not his but yours, which he lacks." (86) Comte-Sponville's opening remarks aligned perfectly with my understanding of the virtue of generosity prior to reading this treatise. Generosity, to me, was all about love, and being selfless. Generosity to me was the giving of yourself to help others. However, C-S quotes Jankelevitch within this chapter, "Certainly, generosity might not involve love." (92) This, to me, seems absurd. How could one who gives simply out of obligation or to escape guilt be considered virtuous? Simply giving to fulfill a promise or pledge is not generosity in my opinion, but is simply following orders and going through the motions. True generosity, in order to be considered a virtue, must be coupled with love. Generosity without love and passion is not a virtue. Does any one agree?
ReplyDeletein accordance with my thoughts above, I also tend to disagree with C-S's idea that we cannot truly follow the biblical commandment to "love our neighbor as ourself." C-S questions, "If we could, what would be the point of generosity?" (97) As mentioned above, I do not believe that generosity and love can be separated. Generosity is an outpouring of love. Generosity must therefore be coupled with love. I do not believe that God would command something that we are not capable of.
We all have the capacity to love others as ourself, but God never promised that it would be easy. I fully disagree with C-S's assertion that "Love is not in our power and never can be." (96) Just like any other virtue, love is something that we must work at. Out of this love, we will be generous as an expression of our emotions and care. This command is not to act and be generous without necessarily loving--that would be, once again, just going through the motions and being fake. This command, to me, does, in fact, suggest that we should be generous to others, but that is not the entirety of the commandment. This generosity should simply be an outward expression of inner love, as I believe it is impossible to have one without the other.
Karlie wrote that Generosity without love isn’t virtuous. But isn’t C-S’ point that sometimes we just don’t love the other, and yet we are still called to be generous. We can strive to love others (that’s what the Christian injunction is really about, right?), but sometimes we fail. I think C-S is saying that you must always be generous, even without love. Love is a feeling, a disposition, something perhaps generated in relationship with another? Can I love someone I don’t know? I think not, but easily I can be generous with someone I don’t know.
ReplyDeleteAndrea wrote about justice and material goods. What would I give up of my material comforts for justice? Does this mean sharing food? My home? Giving up my car to buy food or other necessities for someone in need? On one level we can talk about sharing what material wealth we have. But we could also think more generally, abstractly, broadly about taxation, what governmental policies we do or do not support, what charities we want to consistently and substantially support, and what of our time and talent we commit to the service of justice.
Just trying to broaden the response (or perhaps am trying to justify my lifestyle choices???).
I especially liked what C-S said on page 87: “generosity does not mean acting in accordance with this or that document or law; it means doing more then what the law requires.” This shows that those who go above and beyond are being generous. This is evident in those who do community service, or volunteer in anyway. They are going above and beyond what their community, or scholarship, etc are asking them to do.
ReplyDeleteOn page 92, C-S quotes Jankelevitch, “certainly, generosity might not involve love, but love is almost inevitable generous, at least toward the loved one and for the time that the love lasts.” I read this and literally thought “yes.” You can definitely be generous towards people and your community, etc without loving all of them, or even loving what you are doing to help them. But when you are in a relationship and you love someone, you give yourself to them. You are generous with your heart, and your wallet, and your time. If you love someone, you might even give your life for him or her. And this does not only pertain to couple relationships, but to family and friends too. If you love them, you are willing to do almost anything for them. I would give up my life for my little sister and have no regrets about it. I would do anything for Sara in a heart beat (as long as it wasn’t illegal of course).
In response to Kaylan’s question:
I do agree that you can be generous without love. I can be generous to a homeless person by giving them money without loving them. I can be generous to a co-worker by covering their shift without loving them. Etc.
"Generosity, as I said, is the virtue of giving--giving money (whereby it touches on liberality) or giving of oneself (whereby it touches on magnanimity or even sacrifice). But we can give only what we possess and only on condition of not being possessed by what we own". I thing it goes without saying that it is obvious to give away things that we do not possess is a fairly easy task, but to give away our own possessions-money we worked hard to make, objects that we have bought, food that we made, etc)-this is much harder to do which makes doing so a virtue. I would not have as difficult a time giving away someone else's money to a charity, but when it comes to my minimum wage paycheck that I work to get, it is a bit harder. By making the sacrifice though, and looking past oneself to see others' needs and meeting those needs, one is acting with generosity. Another example would be that concerning time. Time is very precious, and we only have so much of it in a day. Humans are busy creatures, and I think our culture especially today is constantly on the go. We try to cram as many things as possible into our day and are always in a hurry which makes giving our time to others' hard. It is important to keep in mind that time is one of the most valuable things you can give to another because time in itself is so precious. It is generous to willingly give up our time in order to serve others when we do not get anything in return. If we received something in return, such as money or a favor from the recipient, in my mind the act would lose its luster because I don't consider that to be very generous. To me, human beings can be selfish and try to find out how to get the most for themselves. By making the sacrifice and doing something free of charge, this is what makes the act truly special.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point the C-S makes is that generosity is different from love. It is easy for us to do things for those we love for that very reason, we love them. It is more difficult to do things for those whom we have no emotional tie to. While we are taught to love our neighbors as ourselves, we do not truly "love" everyone in the whole world as we love ourselves or relatives and friends. It is much harder, maybe impossible, to truly love a stranger. Therefore, doing something for that person without compensation would be acting out of generosity rather than love.
"Generosity elevates us toward others, as it were, and toward ourselves as beings freed from the pettiness that is the self" (102).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe quote that I believed summed up this chapter well was “to be generous is to be free of self, of one’s petty little deeds and possessions, one’s little resentments and jealousies” (95). I think that this is a lesson that we all should learn in the heavily materialistic culture that we live in today.
ReplyDeleteGenerosity is more than simply giving possessions to those in need to help them, it is also a type of temperament and I found this point to be interesting. Throughout the entire book so far C-S has done an excellent job of showing that these virtues are not only what we think them to mean, but that there is a deeper all-encompassing meaning that is equally important. In my opinion, this is what I find to be the biggest thing that I am able to take away from the Treatise as a whole so far.
To answer Kaylan’s question, in my opinion, the term solidarity is used instead of words like equality and justice because it implies a common identity. That we are standing in solidarity not necessary for equality’s sake but because we are all a group with something in common. As C-S puts it, “one group’s victory is also the other’s, or an action taken against any one of us, different from us though he or she may be – is an attack against us all” (88). Equality and justice are more about protecting common rights that are fundamental to everyone. Solidarity is more about the common identity, brotherhood and standing as one.
As we have encountered before I find it hard to see a virtue as important as others when it is subjective. When discussing courage. Ellen brought up the point that if you are never put in a situation where you are called to act courageously, then you will never be able to possess the virtue of courage. I feel that generosity is subjective in a similar way. C-S states, “We can give only what we possess and only on condition of not being possessed by what we own” (93). If you are not a person with excess means to survive then you will not be able to be generous. If a person is poor, starving, ill and totally dependent on others, I feel that they are unable to be generous. My question is, If one is not able to be generous with their time or excess goods, can they possess the virtue of generosity?
I agree with C-S that you can be generous without truly loving someone. I don’t think it is possible to love strangers (even though I think it is always the goal to act* as though we love them), but I know that it is possible to be generous with strangers. And I believe that it is still important. Whenever I think of loving strangers I think in terms of empathy—isn’t that person just like my friend, my sister, or myself? Or I could imagine that is the case. Wouldn’t you be more likely to be kind to someone who looks just like your little sister because it is easier to imagine that it is your little sister in that position? I know I find myself doing things like this, even though it doesn’t logically make much sense.
ReplyDeleteBut it is absolutely possible to be generous to strangers—anyone who donates to charity or gives a homeless person some money is being generous, going over and above what they must do. I love this aspect of generosity as a virtue—the idea that it is over and above. Sometimes I think religion focuses too much on the “do nots,” that kind of logic of the 10 commandments. But people forget that people like Jesus did not focus on the do nots. In fact, he focused on positive things to do, and not to beat yourself up too much if you make mistakes and sin sometimes. In my mind, better to be a generous person and go over and above what you absolutely must do and sometimes make mistakes and hurt people, rather than never be generous and also never make mistakes.
I also agree with C-S in his section about “for though we can give without loving, it is almost impossible to love without giving.” As I said before, the fact that we give to strangers proves this true. But, he also seems to think that love supersedes generosity to such an extent that when you love someone, you aren’t being truly generous to them because it is not a conscious decision to be generous, but rather an unconscious decision based on the fact that you love them. Now, here is where I start to disagree with them, although I’m wondering if it’s about a difference of opinion between what love means. He seems to be talking about some absolutely perfect love that exists somewhere out there—and I don’t think that exists between humans ever. I love my brother and sister, but there are many times when I just do not want to give them that last cup of coffee! That’s mine! But if I were to be in a better mood that day and let them have it, I would be making a conscious decision to be generous. I, for one, believe that just because there are days when that cup of coffee is mine, this doesn’t mean that I don’t love them.
"Generosity elevates us toward others, as it were, and toward ourselves as beings freed from the pettiness that is the self" (102). (posted by Kelsey, obviously quoting C-S). I cannot help but notice the wording of this quote; genorosity elevates us towards others. Kind of ironic, after talking about justice mean legality and, more importantly, equality. Its as if the quote's wording assumes that you view yourslef as below others, just saying. On the philosophical note, anyway, this makes complete and total sense. Generosity can be seen as a social interaction, which, by proxy, helps you reach out and make connections to others. In addition, as Buddhism puts it, "'I've got wealth.' This is the way a fool brings suffering on himself. He does not even own himself, so how can he have wealth?" By enjoying people instead of excess of materials, you free yourself from the consumerist process.
ReplyDeleteOn the note of being generous without love, I can't help but wonder if we are taking the word "love" too literally/strongly. There are not many people in the world whom I would ascribe the word "loved" to in refernce to my feelings towards them. However, out of a simple love of life and interacting with people, I will act generously. So perhaps a more subtle, indirect interpertation of the word love can be applied here and say that love is, in fact, a key part/incentive towards generosity. For those of you who answered, no you don't need love to be generous, I ask, what then is your incentive? You may answer, doing it just to do it, its the "right" thing to do, etc. etc. I feel as if those are just the tip of the metaphorical iceberg of the reason why you act generously, the lower half being some form of "love". The word love, as a side note, is overly romanticized.
posted by - john n. (account still not taking).
I disagree with C-S--I think it is impossible to be generous without loving someone. I think love can be a confusing word, but I think it is possible to "love your neighbor" without loving ALL of your neighbor. I love everyone in this class, but I don't love everything about everybody in this class. There are people I dislike. Yet I am, at times, generous towards them anyway. Why? I think it is because while I generally dislike that person, there is enough about them I love (if only our shared humanity), to make me generous towards them.
ReplyDeleteI think with anything, one of the most important things to consider is the motive behind the action. What motive does generosity spring from? If we do it for the simple moral satisfaction of knowing we are generous, then that is not truly generosity, but rather an attempt to buy virtue. And obviously, doing "generous" things out of prudence, such as buying Third World countries food to ensure peace, isn't truly generous. (Or is it?)
C-S says that if we can't love everyone, we should ACT as though we love them. That makes me wonder--if we constantly act as though we love people, at what point does the acting become love? I mean, if we do nothing but loving things to a person, how can it be said we do not love them? And what percentage of an action must be motivated by love before we accept that that virtuous act is motivated by love? If I can't love a beggar I give money to because I don't know him well enough to love him, can the action be motivated by love after five minutes conversation? Ten minutes?
Now, maybe C-S is talking about a different kind of love, where you have to really get to know the loved person's character and have a very full understanding of that person. In that case, generosity is not motivated by love. But I think that generally, generosity flows out of that emotion most of us define as love.
Generosity – that virtue that asks us to go above and beyond what is essential, and as Compte-Sponville noted, a necessity in forming and maintaining friendships and experiencing love. It asks us to reach beyond the law, justice and mere societal norms and do or give something extra, something more than what is asked of us.
ReplyDeleteC-S brings up the idea that one can be generous without love. As we discussed in class and as has been mentioned on this blog, I must disagree with C-S when he states that one can be generous without love. I think I have generally the same view as Karlie, that there can be different levels of love and that there is an underlying love for humanity that exists within us that leads us to be generous to strangers as well as to our closest friends and family. Being generous with the latter group enables us to get closer to the perfect love of certain individuals in that one can be generous without even thinking about it. As C-S described, we are generous with our friends because it is just a natural response to our close interactions with them and love for them. However, even if we are not generous to strangers in the same familiar way we are with our friends, it is not necessarily because we don’t love them. We do not personally know strangers, but we can still love them, even if we got to know them and did not like them, we could still love them. Thus, it seems to me that generosity is an outpouring of love, and without love, true generosity cannot exist. Whether it be a close love for a specific individual or a general love for humankind, love still exists, and I argue must exist, in order for generosity to be valued in a virtuous sense. For, would someone give something extra to another if he or she did not have any love at all? Perhaps if one was forced, he or she would be “generous” without loving. But then, would it really be generosity?
I agree with C-S when he says that we can be generous without love. In my opinion, normal people (not saying that Karlie is abnormal in a bad way) do not an underlying love for all humans. In general, people tend to dislike and be mistrustful of people until they have a reason to love them. There is not any instinctive desire to love them. Luckily for the Salvation Army, we live in a Christian society where we are taught to "love our neighbors" and "feed the hungry." But I think that it is more out of a sense of religious duty and hope that the giver will be rewarded in the Afterlife that most people are generous, than a sense of love for the world population.
ReplyDeleteAnother point on generosity is that I don't think that it counts as generosity unless it hurts a little bit to give. For example, if I have fifty dollars, and I give somebody five of them, I just gave them ten percent of my money. That’s pretty generous. But if Bill Gates is walking down the street and gives a homeless guy $100, I don't view that as generosity. It did not hurt Bill at all to do that. Sure, he helped the guy out, but it didn't put Bill out at all. I on the other hand, gave up a substantially larger amount of my money, even though it was a lot less than what Bill gave. It's like diving off a high board into a pool, and diving out of an airplane to skydive. Somebody who is seriously afraid of heights and jumps off the high board, is in my opinion, more courageous than somebody who loves being high up who skydives. I think virtues are measured by how much effort it takes to perform them, not what "quantity" of the virtue the person puts out.
JJ Ruwe