Forcing people to be generous isn't humanitarian, effective, compassionate or moral. Only acts that are truly voluntary for all concerned can be truly compassionate.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
That is one of the bitter curses of poverty; it leaves no right to be generous.
It's very, very hard to be generous and compassionate if you haven't got a dollar in you back pocket to pay for it, to actually pay for those services that people need.
I have seen that traditional approaches to charity and aid don't solve problems of poverty. In fact, too often they create dependence.
What seems to be generosity is often no more than disguised ambition, which overlooks a small interest in order to secure a great one.
There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as 'caring' and 'sensitive' because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money.
Philanthropy should be voluntary.
When we see people that are impoverished and people who are dealt an unfair hand, then if we have the power to help them, we should try to do that.
How much easier is it to be generous than just.
Philanthropic humility is necessary if a giver is to do more good than harm, but it is not sufficient - philanthropic prudence is also needed.
It's a powerful thing to know that you are empowering someone to lift themselves out of poverty.
No opposing quotes found.