Our Obligation to Reform the Rich

"I saw a woman flayed the other day. You have no idea how it altered her appearance for the worse." - Jonathan Swift, writing as the Hack Author in The Tale of the Tub.

Assume estate tax goes away. Can we then say that those who have significant amounts of money, or who work with those who have money, have both the opportunity and the obligation to be more generous, since they will have more, and since the government will not be able to do as much?

Deus Caritas Est, that line of thought leads to the conclusion that, yes, above and beyond what the market gives and takes away, we have an obligation to one another as citizens, as human beings, as "fellows in the body of Christ," or however one wants to put it. I am struck by the fact that some deeply feel this an obligation, are in effect haunted by that obligation, and feel broken if they don't give back. That emotion may be best expressed in Milton's sonnet "On His Blindness," about the "talent that is death to hide." (Harking back to the parable of the talents.) Others say and seem sincerely to feel that they have no obligation, that the hidden hand of providence as expressed in the market through selfishness, pride and vanity, will work for the best outcome, if only we are as self-regarding as humanly possible, free of all constraint, other than the laws of property, sexual propriety, and good middle class manners.

Deus Caritas Est is, to the say the least, a Catholic's perspective. The market driven view might be Calvinist, that is maybe one difference.

But I would like to say that we all have our alibis. Those who would deconstruct and destroy the meaning of a text are at pains to say that it is "always already deconstructed." Kids who make trouble say, "Everyone does it." And those who are selfish say, "Selfishness is good for others." So, I guess I would consider it my obligation as someone who works with wealth to help them grow as a moral being, no matter how they resist, no matter how often they cite selfihsness as their key value or tell me that "Charity begins at home," that the poor have brought in on themselves, that people get what they deserve, or that the Rapture is coming so it really isn't worth the effort. Imposing values on other people is what advertisers, political propagandists, marketers, and think thank thinkers do, as well as preachers. Why can't can't I maniupulate a person into being better than he or she might otherwise have been? It is a teacher's trade, or a physician's. To leave a person malformed when you can heal them would be a sin. (So satirists have said since first threatened with the pillory or crucifixion, ages ago. No one buys it. I don't either. But there is no greater pleasure, speaking as a matter of personal preference, than flaying a malefactor alive as part of a public spectacle applauded by good taste, justice, and morality.)

We have many  who are in favor of less taxes. How many are in favor of increased philanthropy? And how will we get there? What might any of us say to a person who has significant wealth to help him or her find "the better angel of their nature," or to act in the spirit of caritas, when they start out saying, "I am not philanthropically inclined"? How might we raise children to identify with others? And how might we help them to balance the inherent selfishness of our fallen selves with our obligation to something higher and better? How can we use peer pressure to instill an ethic of giving, even as the market philosophy instills sale and purchase as the ultimate model?

I think the Gospels are a pretty good place to start for Christians, but then I read them in the Catholic spirit. Failing that, read Dean Swift, a fine preacher if ever there was one.