Good gifts¶
Christmas is coming. Coming with a high speed. Gifts are being bought and exchanged and everyone is happy and looking forward to it.
Occasionally a type of gifts shows up, that differs from regular gifts: Gift cards. Not the cash replacement-cards that you get from the store, but the one that intentionally replace a gift with a supposed help towards people in need.
The red cross is doing it, basically all charity groups will jump on this sooner or later and especially during Christmas.
I have got some problem with this kind of gift. I dislike the people making this gift who think this is a nice gift; it lowers my respect for them and I dislike the inherent properties of this gift. Let me explain:
Intentionally there’s nothing wrong with the idea behind this: Make gift/transaction towards some people who needs charity. There’s nothing to argue about this. All the other stuff things coming with those gift-cards is what upsets me.
By saying ‘I replace a gift to someone I care about with a charity gift’, I do not loose anything, neither do I show any more effort in helping people. I redirect a give to a new location. That’s it. As if the recipient had moved recently and I sent the package to the new address. Done. That’s how much it requires from the giver.
For this you get a certificate. Basically a confirmation that you have done something good, something right. You get certified that you are a good human and you’ve done your share on charity for this season. Well done, pal!
I think help should require some effort. If it doesn’t: good. If it does: better! The satisfaction you would get out of this when you have to make some effort is much higher for you as well.
The moral side goes much deeper, if you involve more than just the giver and the person receiving the help. Beside the certificate you also can get a card that says “I gave your gift to somebody in need.”. These are the cards that really piss me off. This feels just wrong on many levels.
The first reaction is: “This was my gift! I was supposed to get it.” This is not the ethically best reaction, but it’s perfectly human and reasonable. If I don’t get a gift for Christmas - that’s fine, that is up to you. But saying I have a gift for you, but you will not get it, that is just mean. And by handing over a card that says “I gave it someone in need.”, you are taking away my right to complain as well. Morally I am not allowed any more to complain loudly, that somebody who does not do as well as I do, make me to help. Basically: I helped without being asked and by morally being put in a corner where every move I make to express my dissatisfaction, makes me look greedy and a jerk. All I am left with is to nod silently. Disappointment is not approved.
Helping is good, especially people in need. Talking about that you did it, not so much. It gives it a bad taste. Like you only helped in order to show “I am a good person.” The card you get for this, is especially designed for this. For once you get a certificate (really? For paying money?) and a card you can give instead of the gift. You’re saying: I had a gift for you, but somebody else got it. They really needed it, so it’s OK, right? This kind of gift is so far on the positive charged side of moral, than you almost cannot criticise it for being a bad gift.
These are two different things, depending on who is receiving what. For people in need, this is a great way of getting support. I am only arguing the idea of this replacing what you normally intend to achieve with a gift.
The cards are ordered on the Internet. Shopping on the internet does not require much. It takes more to get a usual gift and wrap it. Do not get me wrong: Giving money to charity should be as easy as possible. That is not the point. The combination of these two is basically to get a gift for somebody with the lowest effort possible and not giving it. If you would have printed the card yourself, you would have shown more effort. Gifts should inherent contain the idea that somebody thought about the gift, spend some time, some personal time to make you happy. It puts more value on the gift. Gifting with charity cards does not do this, it does the opposite. It shows that you do not care about the person close to you at all.
Then, how much is one of those gifts? They all seem to be in the lower to medium price range. Basically, the reasonable price range right at the limit to what you would maybe spend on a stranger (what you are effectively doing). The numbers of how many people get more than one instead of a single gift would be interesting.
As long as you only spent a couple of gifts like this and have common gifts beside this you are doing the following:
You say to some people: I like you enough to make you a personal gift, something I thought about, something that you will like, I hope.
You say to some people: I do not have a gift for you, but I used some money for charity, I can prove it and I want you to imagine, that this could have been a nice gift for you instead. And since somebody in need will get this, you shouldn’t envy them, right?
These cards are nothing more than an excuse for a gift for one, help for the other.
If you really value these gifts, be consequent about it and only give away those cards and spent all your money on charity. Then you can explore your feeling why it feels strange and mostly wrong if you would do it.
Update 2016-01-11 I stumbled over a different approach in the wild: Instead of you deciding what to give, the recipient decided globally to address the issue and asked for charity gifts without being informed. I thought about this a bit and this seems to be a higher moral ground than other solutions.