I must say that I kind of like the direction the prompts here have been going for the last two weeks right up to this. Of course, it's on the subject of charity, and if you're keeping up with the prompts in this community you would notice that. It's also interesting because this community has its name and objective based on this subject of charity, which I think makes it more of a reason to have such a conversation here.
More than that, charity is an important subject. I'll say it's one conversation that society needs to talk more about and continuously push for the sake of its value and the gains that comes from it. It's about reaching that humanity in us and making us see the need to be charitable, give and help others who are needy. The works of charity have impacted society in more ways than we can think of, hence the need to consider such.
Should charity then be made compulsory? Looking at all that it offers and also the possibility of reaching out and helping more of those in need, meaning a better life for them, should it be made compulsory? I think when you look at the value proposition in this consideration, while also looking at the value offered currently by charity works, it could seem like a helpful route for more good. But it begs the question, is charity really charity when it's forced?
This leads me to a simple answer. No. Charity isn't charity when it isn't freewill. Any attempt to make it compulsory takes away that ideal of what charity is in essence. It takes away the fulfilment, joy and all the beautiful feelings of being charitable to others in need. It takes it down to a law that must be obeyed, even if you don't care about charity and the fulfilment that comes from being charitable.
If compulsory, you'll find people doing this not because they like or appreciate it or because they value the impact they're making on the lives of those who are in need. And as I said, when you do that, you take away the true essence of charity. Charity is never compulsory, but a free will and voluntary act. Making it by force or compulsory can also harm the ideal of charity, taking away the value it has had over time.
Since charity is very good and something we should see in society, but it shouldn't be made compulsory, what then can be done to balance things? Should we continually leave it at the will of people even though we know how important it is and the change it would bring when more hands or everyone is involved? It remains at the will and decision or choice of people. But something could be done though; that's encouraging people to get involved.
Rather than take the compulsory approach, people can be enlightened and encouraged to be involved in the work of charity. The benefits to society and the needy can be made known to them. Personal fulfilment can also be related to them. Stories can be shared in media houses, social media and physical gatherings, highlighting the state of the needy and also evidence of how charity has helped transform them. This and more voluntary appeals will be helpful.