The Path Of Altruism: A Reflection On The Nature Of A Gift

As I write this, America is approaching Christmas 2006.  All over the country, attorneys and accountants are reminding their clients that it is time to make their annual tax advantaged gifts.  As these reminder letters are received, the dutiful recipients sit down, write the checks, and send them off. Most of them include the most limited transmittal messages.  The recipients of these checks receive them as a part of their expected rights and cannot imagine doing without them.  They, in fact, have no expectation that they might be required to do so.  The recipients are fully dependent on these transfers and their senders fully complicit in rendering them so.  Clearly there are no gifts here.  The donors have no heart-based sense of gratitude for their blessings and are lacking a desire to enhance the lives of those with whom they seek to share their love.  There is no love being exchanged.  Rather, the donors are acting out of duty to be good stewards toward the reduction of taxes.  The recipients are merely the means of doing so.  In this tragedy of a failed relationship gifts are rendered transfers.  There is a difference between a gift and a transfer.  A gift enhances the human and intellectual development of another. A transfer might initiate the downhill slide of another into the state of victimhood known as entitlement.  Every act we do toward another, whether individually or through our social capital as philanthropists, has these two possible outcomes.  This article will discuss the differences between the making of a gift and the making of a transfer.

The word "entitlement" has begun to take on a life in our modern society as a description of a negative state of being.  Originally, to be entitled was to be a person with a title, a member of the aristocracy; it was also to have the rights and obligations, which that title conferred.  This word in modern political parlance, describes programs, which confer rights on citizens to receive something that the government is obliged, by law, to give them.  The state of "being entitled" describes, in our government, the citizen whom these entitlement programs are obliged to benefit.  In our modern world, such programs have created, in many of their beneficiaries, states of being in which the persons "entitled" exhibit all of the symptoms of dependence and victimhood. These are symptoms, which we normally associate with the extremely rich, dysfunctional beneficiaries of trusts.  The governmentally entitled are people whose daily lives are consumed by defending their rights to things they did not create, but which were bestowed upon them by someone else.  These are people who, through this view of themselves as "entitled", live negatively and never find purpose and calling as free persons.  They are people who blame others for their dependent status, rather than taking responsibility for the state in which they find themselves.  Finally, they are people who live in fear of losing their "rights."  They become so attached to the things to which they are "entitled" that they live in the delusion that they could not exist without those things.  In this sense, they are victims since they see themselves as dependent on the acts of others for their well-being.  These are persons whose dependence renders them profoundly unfree.  To be unfree is to be in some form of slavery.  In my opinion, to be captured by "entitlement" is to be enslaved as a human being at some level of deep self-deception.  The fascinating thing to me about the behaviors of those "entitled" is that these are behaviors normally displayed by the wealthy class. These behaviors are now exhibited in all classes of modern society whenever rights are conferred by entitlement programs.  I find it interesting that many modern democratic states have elected to assign to nearly all of their citizens a status normally assigned only to aristocrats.   Perhaps, paradoxically, as our society tries to become more egalitarian, it may actually be becoming less so. 

It is now clear, as evidenced by the lives of many beneficiaries of entitlement programs, that any act by another, whether the state or an individual, that renders a person dependent, does not lead to increased individual or societal happiness.  Throughout this article, I will argue that any act toward another which begins as obligation, will likely lead to dependence and the reduction of the human spirit; obligation meaning sense of duty, rather than responsibility or gratitude.  I will argue further that any action that creates in another a state of "being entitled" carries with it, for that person, a significant risk of becoming, in his or her own eyes, a victim with an ever-deepening loss of self-awareness and personal freedom.

Society, as with any donor, had best consider, before it makes any gifts, what rights and obligations the gift confers on the recipient.  Society had best begin by asking itself what harm might this gift do to its recipient before it asks itself what good it may confer upon him.  Society ought to ask if this gift enhances or detracts from the life of the individual who will receive it.

Since this is a Reflection on the problem of individuals related to entitlement, I will not say more here about the larger societal issues except to ask the reader to appreciate how sadly dependent the welfare programs, of at least our American society, have rendered their beneficiaries. 

Let us now turn to the question of entitlement as it affects the individual human being. 

I will argue throughout this article that:

The duty and responsibility of each human being is to achieve the highest level of self-awareness and the competence and personal freedom that grows out of it that he or she is capable of in this lifetime

That the best measurement of self-awareness is how free from illusion a particular human spirit is

 

I will measure attainment of freedom on the very simple scale of the calculus,

minus one on this calculus is total victimhood, with the self unaware and enslaved by self-deception

zero is the point on the calculus, represented by the apprentice, someone who is not a victim but equally is not yet able to take full responsibility for his or her actions and is ready to learn;

plus one is the enlightened state in which the self can, with complete humility, take full responsibility for all of its actions toward itself and toward others who acts out of gratitude to all the wise ones who have assisted it in fulfillment of its human journey to know itself completely, in so doing who has become pure compassion, and who then acts with compassion toward all others seeking to arrive at the same awareness of themselves.

I will argue that whenever a person feels entitled there is a very significant risk of falling below zero on this scale.  I will argue that the state of "being entitled" is something the self becomes through transfers it receives from another.  In other words, no self is born "entitled" to anything.  Through the environment in which that self matures and through the acts upon it by others through "gifts", that that self becomes free and aware. Alternatively, it is through "transfers" from others that it becomes "entitled", unfree, and unaware.  I will argue that the state of the heart and intuitional development of the person making the gift or transfer is critical to the impact on the recipient.  Does the self receive benefits from the person acting on it leading toward enhanced self-awareness, competence and personal freedom or receive detriments leading to greater dependence, victimhood, and loss of freedom?  Does the self ultimately fall into delusion and self-deception, in which fear and desire for someone else to "fix it", renders this "entitled person" unfree?

Obligation is one of the most profound words in the English language. Webster's dictionary says that obligation and duty are somewhat synonymous but that obligation suggests an imminent responsibility to act, a short-term duty, while duty, in another form of obligation, suggests a long-term responsibility.  Thus Webster suggests that within obligation there are contained the concepts of duty and responsibility being acted out in any given situation where obligation forms an underlying part of the action being taken.  In studying the word "obligation" I have come to see that when it is applied to a gift it has three levels of awareness, not just the two Webster suggests.

Obligation as Duty

Maimonides, a Jewish philosopher, in his meditation on giving, lists eight stages of giver (listed as an appendix to this Reflection).  The lowest stage of giver is the one who gives grudgingly and less than he or she is capable of giving.  I equate obligation as duty to this level of giving.  Here the spirit of the giver is small and unaware. The gift comes without a sense of desire to enhance the life of the recipient but out of obligation; obligation in the most limited sense of duty being motivated by a desire not to be embarrassed societally by doing nothing.   This is a sense of obligation in which the spirit of the giver is disengaged or, worse, actively hostile to the gift being made.  It is my opinion that a gift of this sort, despite Maimonides, is not a gift at all.  Rather it is a transfer, from a duty that carries with it no positive spirit whatsoever.  It is not a transfer designed to enhance anything, but rather an obligation required to be paid, no different than any other debt. 

All spiritual traditions suggest that we should be neither a lender nor debtor.  All know that the spirit of the lender or debtor is rarely toward enhancement and often is mean spirited at best.  A transfer made from this form of obligation is likely to lead to the recipient being rendered dependent by it, with the loss of self and freedom that flows from that state.  This is an obligation to a person the giver doesn't see at all or sees as a victim to be pitied, not as a spirit to be enhanced.  Neither giver nor recipient gains a positive sense of self from the donor acting out of this sense of obligation.  It is easy to see in this form of obligation how the recipient, having been rendered a victim in the eyes of the donor, comes to see him or herself as entitled to these transfers.  The recipient might think, "I'm a victim of some level of injustice that put me in this state, so I'm entitled to be made whole."

This condition is exemplified by the failure of the welfare system in the United States.  This system, which was developed out of obligation as duty, renders large numbers of people dependent, even though its purpose was to make them independent.  In fact, it creates a huge bureaucracy to manage its programs staffed by workers who often look down on the people they are serving and see them as unfree and dependent, even as they are making them so.  There is no better example one could have of giving leading to a reduction of the human condition and increasing suffering through creating dependency.  This is a classic case of doing harm while attempting to do good. 

There was a time in the 1970's and 1980's in America when it was fashionable to be a victim.  I would ask American readers whether this was a time when they felt the spirit of American society was in a period of enhancement or depression.  I'm betting most of you will say the latter.  Deciding one is a victim is a slippery slope toward becoming entitled.  I hasten to add that truly self-aware people have the courage and capacity to redress injustice to themselves or others, as they do not see themselves as victims even though they may be in the humblest of circumstances.  Such people look upon themselves with respect and take responsibility for their conditions. They do not see themselves as entitled victims looking to someone else to fix it for them.

To take full responsibility for oneself is to be the most free, as the calculus I have suggested shows.  To be profoundly "entitled" is to be on the wrong end of the calculus.  All too often these sad measurements begin with the transfer from another that comes from obligation as duty but without spirit.  Such transfers, which are not gifts since NO LOVE is transferred, are truly dangerous to both the givers' and the recipients' spirits.  I believe that it is this form of transfer, as duty, that, in the wealthy classes has led to the creation of trusts of all forms, which have gone on to create dependence or remittance addiction in their beneficiaries; the same way the state welfare programs have led to dependence in their recipients.

Let us all, from this day forward attempt in all of our giving to recognize that acting toward another from the state of obligation as duty is not only extremely dangerous to the spirits of the recipients, but also dangerous to our own spirits as well.

Obligation as Responsibility:

In this form of obligation, the individual making a gift asks the question will my gift do harm before it does good.  In this case of obligation we see responsibility as overtaking duty to others.  Here we can feel a caring for others entering the donor's heart and intuition.  The donor here is acting as steward.  In Maimonides view, such a donor would be about at the fourth/fifth levels of giving.  Here the donor knows and cares about the wellbeing of the recipient but remains somewhat disconnected from the outcome of the gift.  Such a donor has a beginner's mind, in seeking to make gifts that help and enhance, but is not yet giving out of a deep sense of self-awareness.  Giving responsibly requires of the donor active caring about whether the gift will harm another.  One of the greatest harms of not acting responsibly as we discussed above, is the rendering of another as a dependant, with the concomitant risk of that spirit feeling itself a victim and then becoming "entitled" to be a victim.  Here, obligation as responsibility leads the donor to ask whether this gift will do harm before asking if this gift will do good.  Let me assure the reader that asking this question does not hold the donor back from giving; rather it enables him or her to "Hasten Slowly."  For me, this simple aphorism represents responsibility to others at its highest level.  Action is needed if we are to enhance our own and others states of being, but prudence, as Aristotle taught us, is one of the great virtues in living life and acting within it.¹  In addition, I would suggest that obligation as responsibility, as represented in responsible giving, carries within it the notion of prudence, balanced with the courage and justice tempered with mercy that is needed to give responsibly.²  To give is an act of courage, because of the risks to the human spirit a gift as duty, a transfer, not a gift, can carry as we discussed above.  A gift, responsibly given, reflects justice as mercy, since it calls on the donor to rebalance some part of the human equation.  I believe that obligation as responsibility is acted out best when these three virtues, prudence, courage, and justice tempered with mercy are guiding it.  An example of this form of giving is social venturing.  In this form of philanthropy the donor understands the risk that his or her gift can do harm.  These donors understand modern psychology, sociology, anthropology and modern business, social, and organizational dynamics.  They act toward others based on the wisdom learned from these disciplines.  They understand that any effort to change human behavior is fraught with the risk that it will make things worse and increase human suffering.  Thus, they begin gingerly, walking on eggshells, and seek slow incremental change rather than immediate results.  Programs like those that adopt whole classes of school children and follow them all the way to college are excellent examples of the best of this type of philanthropy.  Head Start Programs and the Peace Corp would be others. 

At this stage of obligation, there is still a risk that a gift will create in the spirit of the recipient a feeling of entitlement. Certainly, the risk of that occurring is greatly reduced from that of a gift made from a state of mind of obligation as duty.  To meet one's responsibilities mindfully and to take full responsibility for them are the actions of a self-aware person.  To carry this through to one's gifts to others is the personification of self-awareness.  Being especially mindful, in giving to another, of the risk of creating a state of entitlement in the spirit of another, is to carry to its highest level the definition of obligation as responsibility to another.

Obligation as Gratitude Expressed to Others through and as Compassion.

Many of us know the injunction "to whom much is given, from whom much is expected."³ Equally, many of us feel burdened rather than enlightened by it.  The statement feels like a "should."  I will suggest that the obligation this statement defines is the obligation to be grateful and to be compassionate not "to do our duty."  Normally, this statement is understood to describe being given things and then being obliged to share them.  I would suggest that this is not its meaning.  I have come to see that the statement "to whom much is given" actually defines the spiritual gifts we originally receive when we are born.  Gifts that enable us to grow our human and intellectual capacities. Human and intellectual capital in abundance are the true gifts of great spirit.  These are the "things" we are given.  When we are blessed to be given them in large measure, it is these gifts that we are admonished to share. It is this that is "much expected" of us.  A few of us will "choose our parents well," as a joking member of a financially wealthy family said, and be given at birth the blessing of financial capital far beyond our needs.  When the conjunction of great financial wealth and great human and intellect capital occur in one individual it creates a larger theater in which such individuals can act with true compassion toward others in expressing gratitude for his or her gifts.⁴  While few of us are given monumental capital, each of us is given the blessings of human and intellectual capital.  It is these capital gifts that I believe are the ones relevant to this injunction that can apply to every human being.

Obligation as gratitude, expressed to others as compassion, is a concept that flows to us from all of the great spiritual traditions. Gratitude as compassion is not a matter of the mind as intellect, but of the spirit as intuition.  To learn to be grateful, and to express that virtue, as compassion to others not so blessed as we, is to attain self-awareness at its highest level.  The Christ, the Buddha, the Hindu sages, the Judaic Sages, and Mohammed, all expressed this truth.  Interestingly all held that gratitude expressed as compassion is a matter of the heart as mind or, if you will, of feeling, of intuition, as heart-based living and learning. To be truly grateful is to be joyfully loving without limit; to be fully compassionate.  To do this, one must know oneself fully and be made free by that knowledge.  I believe that obligation manifested through gratitude as compassion leads to the enhancement of one's own spirit and to the enhancement of the spirits of others which it touches.  It is the practice of love for one's fellow man.  It is the essence of philos anthropos and thus of philanthropy.

Some years ago, I was informed on this subject in a speech by Robert Lehman.  The theme of this speech was how to be a great giver in the capacity of philanthropist.  Mr. Lehman explained that no gift is meaningful and may do harm to the recipient, if it is not made by a giver who has first gone deep inside herself or himself to discern who she or he is, and then gives to others from that self-knowledge.⁵  Here is the essence of great giving.  To know oneself completely must lead to gratitude for this life and its blessings and to the gift in this lifetime of that knowledge.⁶  Such knowledge, expressed in gifts to others, must reflect our compassion for our own failings. This leads to true caring for others through our self-knowledge.  We will express to others our gratitude for the compassionate state we are blessed to be in, by the self-awareness we experience and the humility it creates.  To know oneself fully is to be enlightened to one's own state of being and to the state of being of others.  How then could our gifts do harm when we will care so much, and be so compassionate toward the complexity of the human condition and to its suffering?  Of course, being human we will still make mistakes since "to err is human" but the likelihood of them doing harm will be highly reduced.

Gratitude as love, the humility it spawns, and the compassion that grows out of it leads to a profound desire that no human being fall into the diminished state of self, of being "entitled," and the delusion of victimhood and suffering that grows from it.  So the person to whom much is given is obliged by the fact that from her or him much is expected.  Obligation in this sense is not duty or responsibility; it is obligation expressed as compassion in one's acts toward others, out of gratitude for one's own gifts, founded on one's own deep self-awareness and freedom.  As Lehman said, going deep inside oneself and then expressing what we have learned about ourselves in our dealings with others and particularly in our gifts to others, reflects the knowledge we have gained of ourselves. 

Maimonides, in his seventh/eighth levels of giving, expresses these same thoughts.  In the seventh level, he admonishes the giver to give anonymously without knowing where the gift will come to rest and without the person receiving it knowing the giver.  Here the giver acts purely out of gratitude for his own human condition and joyfully and with pure compassion toward another, whom he will never know.  A beautiful example of this form of giving was the outpouring of compassion from people all over the world for the suffering of others and the gifts that flowed from that sympathy in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001 and of the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004.

In the eighth level of giving, we find embedded the concept of helping a human being face a problem so that he will be able to fully take care of his own needs. This level of giving is encapsulated in the Chinese proverb that to help a man learn to fish enables him to eat for a lifetime while giving him a fish only enables him to eat for a day.  Thus, the giver seeks a means to enhance the human condition of another for an entire lifetime.  Maimonides suggests positive action to carry out the Talmudic Judaic commandment that to save one human life is as if you were saving the whole world.  Maimonides helps us in our daily lives to see that helping a man "to fish" is preferred to waiting until he is starving to "save" him.  This is action out of gratitude expressed as compassion that meets every human being's task of saving life and thereby reducing suffering.  It is a gift that lifts a human being up to independence rather than a transfer that creates dependence.  I fully appreciate that very few of us, and certainly not I, will attain a level of self-awareness in this life that will enable us to fully express and to be gratitude as compassion.  This state of being is for the Buddha, the Christ, the Jewish Sages, Mohammed and for a few enlightened human beings like Maimonides, Confucius, and Lao Tzu.  Not to recognize and attempt to reach this level of obligation would, however, set our sights on what we are "obliged" to do much too low.  We can and must, for our own self-development, seek out the possibilities that gratitude and the humility it spawns offer for the expression by each of us of compassion, as love, as we interact with others.  To help reduce our suffering, by becoming as self-aware and free as possible, will not only enhance our own lives but also help us reduce compassionately the suffering of others.

A wonderful example of human beings acting toward others with gifts of compassion that offer freedom to their recipients is the women's micro-lending program begun in Bangladesh by Mohamed Yunus through the Grameen Bank.  These are programs in which those to whom much is given share their bounty with women all over the world who are among the poorest of the poor.  All over the world, these programs share the bounty with true compassion and understanding for what helps another human being become independent. Loans are made to such women so they can create micro-enterprises.  Some of these programs, such as Friendship Bridge,⁷ even help educate the children of their female borrowers.  Given the now millions of micro-loans that have been made and the huge increases in human happiness experienced by these women as measured by the increased independence and the joy it brings to them we see compassion, acting out of deep self-awareness of the human condition, at work.⁸

So, yes, we are obliged but not as obligation as duty.  Obligation as responsibility for others is a state, which all of us can and must attain if our dealings with others are to avoid doing harm and hopefully do some good.  Obligation as gratitude is the highest form of the word obligation and while it is a tool of self-awareness that few of us will attain, it stands as a beacon of light to help alleviate suffering and toward which we should strive. Obligation as gratitude expressed toward others as compassion particularly helps avoid in the giver the risk, through his or her gift, of trapping another human being in the delusion that he or she is a victim and is thus "entitled" to something. 

At a time when a few of us are blessed to live in abundance and so many are deprived, it is the obligation of those of us blessed with abundance can do to assist those less fortunate to become more free.  I believe we can do this best if our gifts are given courageously, justly, and most importantly, compassionately and with the intention that they should be given in ways that combat the forces that create the victim state of entitlement.  I believe that each of us has an obligation to so act.  To inadvertently enable another through our acts to assume the garb of the entitled is the antitheses of the admonition to us to save human lives.  All too often, our own acts, attempting to improve, do harm by reducing another's freedom rather than enhancing it.  Creating or enabling a state in which another comes to feel "entitled" is to increase human suffering.  Entitlement is a condition dangerous to the human spirit.  To work against it is to work for freedom, self-awareness, and human flourishing; this is the depth of the expression of gratitude as compassion. 

It is my hope that every reader of this paper will deeply consider:

• in what ways she or he feels entitled, and to what extent he or she feels that he or she is a victim

• in what ways she or he has added to or reduced the sense of victimhood in another especially as expressed as entitlement;

• in what ways she or he has contributed to the increase of personal freedom and self-awareness in another and thus reduced how the other sees  herself or himself as a victim

• in what ways he or she defines obligation, especially in giving to others

• in what ways she or he expresses to others gratitude as compassion

The increase of human dignity that comes from greater freedom and self-awareness is the direction on the calculus to which all human beings strive.  To become entitled as victim is to move negatively on the calculus. 

May each of us in our lives, and in our interactions with others, be obliged to act only toward the positive end of the calculus; toward our own and others greater freedom and self-awareness and the individual happiness and flourishing it represents.

PART II
IMPORTANT VOICES TO ASSIST FAMILIES IN THE DOMAIN OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

As a family considers its gifts to others, from the highest levels of Maimonides grid, whose work might it find helpful, to achieve its highest impact.

Peter Karoff, my mentor, friend, and the founder of The Philanthropic Initiative (TPI), in Boston Massachusetts has written extensively on the issues families face in seeking to make their philanthropy strategic.  He has also been a voice in explaining the nature of social venturing.  You can find many of Karoff's writings at www.TPI.org.

Virginia Esposito of the National Center for Family Philanthropy, in Washington, DC, has a wonderful book on starting a family philanthropy called, "Splendid Legacy, the Guide to Creating Your Family Foundation." Washington, D.C., The National Center for Family Philanthropy, 2002.

Charles Collier, Senior Philanthropic Adviser at Harvard College, my friend and colleague, has helped many families discover and enunciate their values as a way of helping them do their philanthropy better.  His book "Wealth in Families," second edition, Cambridge, Massachusetts, President and Fellows of Harvard College 2002,   is a very helpful guide to this subject.

Deanne Stone has written a wonderful story of a family's philanthropy and of its construction in a pamphlet by called, Building Family Unity through Giving, the Store of the Nameste Foundation."  The pamphlet can be obtained at the Whitman Institute, San Francisco, California.

Christine W. Letts, William P. Ryan and Allen Grossman offer a book called "High Performance Non Profit Organizations."   It is a very useful text for managing non-profits.

Tracy Gary, one of the great philanthropists of our time, and her colleague Melissa Kohner, have given us a marvelous workbook called, "Inspired Philanthropy, Creating a Giving Plan."

Susan Kenny Steven, a book called  "Non-Profit Lifecycles: Stage Based Wisdom for Non-profit Capacity."    A terrific measurement device for families to use in their philanthropies to answer the questions like "How are we doing?" and "What stage of evolution as an organization are we in?"

Kathryn Fulton and Andrew Blau have co-authored a book called, "Looking Out For the Future:  An Orientation for Twenty-first Century Philanthropists."   It offers a deep look at the state of philanthropy today in America and its challenges in the new century.

Paul Schervish and his colleague, John J. Havens, prepared a paper in 1999 called, "The Millionaires and the Millennium:  New Estimates for the coming Wealth Transfer and the Prospects for the Golden Age of Philanthropy."  In this paper Schervish and Havens offer fascinating numbers about the trillions of dollars that will be transferred within families in the next 50 years and the likely amounts of those transfers that will come to rest in philanthropy.   The paper can be found at www.bc.edu/SWRI.

©James E. Hughes, Jr., 2006