Is it okay to live solely off of the generosity of others?

Question

Some may say that man should help man because it is beneficial to society. However what if someone's entire livelihood is dependent on this belief? Should others be expected to support these people, so that the harmony in their community isn't jeopardized?

Didn't think of welfare, but I guess that will apply.
____

So let us assume that you cut off that person and they commit a crime to get the thing that you were supplying to them before. Should you partially blame yourself? Afterall if you would of kept giving that person wouldn't have to resort to such means.

You do know that people do make a living off of it. From where they live and what they eat. Wasn't it popular in the hippie generation?

Answer 1

No. Living off of the generosity of others does not go unnoticed. Others will come to recognize this as greed and become less willing to be generous. The end result would be a completely selfish culture where everyone takes any advantage over others no matter how cruel.

Others should never be expected to support anyone or have generosity. The expectation of generosity devalues generosity itself. It is more than likely that an act is not generosity if it was expected.

Holding harmony hostage for unending forced charity is terrorism.

Answer 2

If a person is honestly disabled, and incapable of working, then, yes, that person needs and deserves to be supported by society.
However, just because a person believes that the world owes him a living, doesn't make it so.
On the other hand, what about people who work hard every day, and barely make enough to make ends meet? Should the rest of the community lend a hand?
What about stay-at-home Moms? Surely, the rest of the community benefits from these parents who give up their time to raise their kids...and often, everyone else's on the block...shouldn't there be some government fund to help support them and their children?
Don't you think the biggest problem we face as human beings is our own jealousy and greed?
Why should it be that there are people who toss out more in a day than other people get to eat in a month?
What good does it do anyone, when the rich toss in their fine beds every night trying to figure out how to extort even more money from the poor, while the children of the poor die of starvation and diseases that are easily prevented?
What would happen, do you think, if we just got tired of it, and refused to co-operate with a system that grinds most of the people in the world into the dirt?
Something to think about....

ADDED:
Yeah, I am a member of "The Hippie Generation".
I'm sure you've heard of the famous "Hippie Communes" of the sixties?
A group of people living together, as a "community", all of whom contributed to the community as a whole...some made things by hand to sell, some hired out to work and bring in money, some worked in and around the commune itself, in and outside of the "house"...and everyone benefited. There is a sense of family, and belonging, in such an arrangement. Even the old and the "infirm" have a sense of purpose. Children are well-fed and well-cared for.
It was a great idea, but the minute you get someone who wants to "take control" over everyone else, (and it's almost inevitable), the whole thing falls apart.
No, I'm afraid that, while it's a great idea, and a grand dream, as long as human beings are what we are, "community" becomes "communism" all too easily.
I believe that it will work...one day...in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Answer 3

If you're talking about welfare, which I think you may be, versus allowing someone to live despite the fact you dislike them (which is quite a chilling thing to think, actually), then my response is no, people should be shown how to live without that. Don't throw 'em to the wolves, but do teach them how to live without being dependent upon others.

If you think about it though, some people would never get jobs if not for someone else being generous. But I'm not sure how deep you want me to respond, so I'll leave it at that.

I think if people are truly generous, they will support whoever is in the community to keep it in harmony. Part of support is TEACHING.

Answer 4

We have a duty to help people in need, but by completely supporting people, we are actually doing them harm.

People become dependent on support and loose their sense of personal pride and self reliance.

I supported a brother in law for 2 years, in the end, it was too taxing on my family and I asked him to get a job so that he could start contributing to the bills. He got very upset and accused me of being condescending.

I realize now that to some degree it was my fault, because my attempts at kindness created a situation that made it too easy for him to rely on my generosity. He felt guilt about it, and when it ceased, he converted that guilt into anger.

I know now that helping people is my duty, but providing a situation that helps them provide for themselves is just as important.

Answer 5

A man should not rely on someone else's generosity forever. He must learn how to stand on his own 2 feet. If u can afford and willing to reach out and help others, make sure u don't let others over use ur generosity.

Answer 6

Benevolence benefits the giver as well as the receiver but it is unwise to assume God intends anyone to always be the receiver. Actually, it is more blessed to give than to receive so I would think it is everyone's goal to achieve the ability to give on a regular basis.

Answer 7

i think its fine to get assistance, but if you depend on it, and dont do anything to try and better yourself, then you are taking advantage of it, and should repent of that.

i know people that have a lot of kids that get a lot of assistance, which is fine, because they are doing what they can with what they have...

Answer 8

I don't believe in charity, but I believe in helping a man help himself.

Answer 9

No. Thats called taking advantage. I dont think that god, or anyone for that matter, would appreciate that.

Answer 10

No, because God says if a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat.