Your argument seems to be roughly equivalent to this: “The term ‘tithe’ was originally applied to something more like tax than like charity. We pay quite a lot of tax. Some forms of charitable activity turn out to be harmful. Therefore it is not a good idea to give 10% of your income to charitable causes.” But that last bit (which is, of course, the point) seems like a total non sequitur.
I see only two things in what you’ve written that come anywhere near arguing for the final inference. I don’t think they’re good arguments.
“Wouldn’t changes to government and taxation be a better service for society?” (My answer: They might be a very good thing, but I don’t see how they funge against donation to charities.)
“I fear that adding charity juts skews the existing systems and adds an additional element the effects of which nobody sufficiently understands.” (This seems like a universal Argument Against Any Institution. Why is it any more reason to distrust charity than to distrust medical insurance, or banks, or marriage, or armies, or universities?)
Yes. I agree that these are separate points and one does not follow from the other. The are related though. Initially I cosidered writing them separately but writing led to one single piece. I don’t see clearly how to split it but I agree that it probably shouldn’t have been mixed.
Your first point that charities do exist and are kind of orthogonal (and not a new invention) is valid. But I don’t see it as the most efficient way to do things.
Your second point misses as I didn’t meant to apply it against existing structures but against new ones. But then charity isn’t new really. Readding a tithe is.
Your argument seems to be roughly equivalent to this: “The term ‘tithe’ was originally applied to something more like tax than like charity. We pay quite a lot of tax. Some forms of charitable activity turn out to be harmful. Therefore it is not a good idea to give 10% of your income to charitable causes.” But that last bit (which is, of course, the point) seems like a total non sequitur.
I see only two things in what you’ve written that come anywhere near arguing for the final inference. I don’t think they’re good arguments.
“Wouldn’t changes to government and taxation be a better service for society?” (My answer: They might be a very good thing, but I don’t see how they funge against donation to charities.)
“I fear that adding charity juts skews the existing systems and adds an additional element the effects of which nobody sufficiently understands.” (This seems like a universal Argument Against Any Institution. Why is it any more reason to distrust charity than to distrust medical insurance, or banks, or marriage, or armies, or universities?)
Yes. I agree that these are separate points and one does not follow from the other. The are related though. Initially I cosidered writing them separately but writing led to one single piece. I don’t see clearly how to split it but I agree that it probably shouldn’t have been mixed.
Your first point that charities do exist and are kind of orthogonal (and not a new invention) is valid. But I don’t see it as the most efficient way to do things.
Your second point misses as I didn’t meant to apply it against existing structures but against new ones. But then charity isn’t new really. Readding a tithe is.
Nice summary by the way. Thank you.