We can’t all be charitable right? — Benj96

We call all try to be.

Both parties gain a personal sense of satisfaction from their actions. — Benj96

That's not the point of generosity, or any action from the heart. The point is to help other people, whom we care for as members of our community, however we want to define that. People like each other. We care about each other. We don't do it because it makes us feel good. We do it because we know it's right.

We do it because we know it's right. — T Clark

And knowing it’s right makes us feel good

And knowing it’s right makes us feel good — Benj96

Not if it's truly from the heart. Lao Tzu:

Therefore the sage is devoted to non action, Moves without teaching,
Creates ten thousand things without instruction, Lives but does not own, Acts but does not presume,
Accomplishes without taking credit. When no credit is taken, Accomplishment endures.

Aldiss and Lombardo translation of Tao Te Ching.

We can’t all be charitable right? — Benj96

Quite difficult when we live in an era which the values are fading away. It is not the issue about be or not be charitable but promoting this attitude through education. Sometimes, when you see a very good person with a great soul making laborious acts to help people, he or she ends up cheated or disappointed of how ungrateful the people can be.

If no one was in need then givers would be disheartened and if no one was a taker then demand would leave no incentive, no purpose in life.

We can’t all be charitable right? — Benj96

Yes, we can all be charitable. I believe it is intrinsic to human behaviour. It's certainly a requirement of most religious systems. I can't foresee a time when people won't need to help each other.

Both parties gain a personal sense of satisfaction from their actions. — Benj96

I think you're describing what is called reciprocal altruism. The term givers and takers is a loaded one - 'taker' has a pejorative ring to it. The reality is that some people need more more support than others.

We don't do it because it makes us feel good. We do it because we know it's right. — T Clark

I think this is right. Although there are no doubt some folk who give to demonstrate piety or get a tax advantage.

If no one was in need then givers would be disheartened and if no one was a taker then demand would leave no incentive, no purpose in life. — Benj96

There are those in need and those who can provide, and we are all both and we should all be both. A life without giving and a life without needing are both limited existences. But, yes, it's a great opportunity to be able to give, and we should be thankful for those opportunities.

None of this suggests that we should purposefully or wantonly fail in order to provide the successful a chance to help us. All systems rely upon mutual aid, so they assume that we all are acting in good faith trying our best to do our best, with the understanding that sometimes our best doesn't work out so well.

To those who aren't in good faith, either as givers or takers, yeah, they're the problem.

Although there are no doubt some folk who give to demonstrate piety or get a tax advantage. — Tom Storm

There's no reason people can't have more than one reason for the things they do.

Sometimes, when you see a very good person with a great soul making laborious acts to help people, he or she ends up cheated or disappointed of how ungrateful the people can be. — javi2541997

True generosity is not performed with the expectation of gratitude. Which is not to say that showing gratitude is not important. It is.

For me, the thing that we should be focus on is how to make less takers. And not more givers. To make social circumstances better as less people to need help from others.

Giving isn't the solution to the problem at all. It's just a last "humanity safety net" but it doesn't solve anything after all.
The main problem with charity is what Nietszche spotted. That when you feel compassion and you pity someone, then you urge the person to pity himself also!Like giving him more excuses than he already has. This is like making an endless circle go on and on.

There are many people who depend on charity and people who find that as the "easiest solution" in their lives. They convince even themselves that they aren't worthy for anything better.
The genuine taker actually feels shame when he receives help. His proud takes a punch! He doesn't want that. But he can't do otherwise.

Of course charity is important in societies and I don't support to stop helping others at any chance! But it shouldn't be the main purpose.
At the end you can't demand from anyone that has just one life to devote it to others! He should do that, only if he feels like it but you can't accuse anyone who doesn't think that way.

Each one face his own personal "chaos" you can't blame him for wanting to solve only his problems and not others also.
The genuine givers are those who act like that cause they CAN'T do otherwise. They would feel bad with themselves if they didn't. This comes natural to them. They don't do it as to point the finger to the others and show how "better" from the rest are. Those who do that are nothing more than hypocrites.
"The one who gives is the one who gains the most" after all as Nietzsche wrote.

Sometimes, when you see a very good person with a great soul making laborious acts to help people, he or she ends up cheated or disappointed of how ungrateful the people can be. — javi2541997

Good point. And I suppose if they have the view that they would do it anyway despite whether people are grateful or not means they aren’t doing it “transactionally”.

Your reply gave me a lot of good insights. I agree with you it seems the ideal is to not desire help or frame your worth in respect to how much assistance you require but to help it enable one to be more independent and less in need of help or better yet to reach a level where they themselves can offer it to others.

Giving isn't the solution to the problem at all. It's just a last "humanity safety net" but it doesn't solve anything after all. — dimosthenis9

This is a bit like the sentiment “give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.” It’s about creating cycles of sustainability.

This is a bit like the sentiment “give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime — Benj96

Exactly. This sentiment says it all.

they aren’t doing it “transactionally”. — Benj96

Yes, you are right. But we can have the risk that if those good heart people experience a lot of betray after their actions, they will no longer be charitable anymore and probably they would even regret all their past actions.