Abstract

The essay investigates if and how Greco-Roman theorists attempted to motivate altruistic behaviour and devise a social-welfare ethics. In comparison, it studies actual social-welfare practices on both the private and the state level. Various social-welfare tasks are touched upon – health care; care for the elderly, widows, orphans and invalids; the patron-client system as countermeasure to unemployment; distribution of land, grain, meals and money; alms, donations, foundations as well as education – with hardly any one of them being especially tailored to the poor. The enormous role of civil society – private persons, their households and associations – in holding up social-welfare functions is shown. By contrast, the state was comparatively less involved, the commonwealth of the Romans, especially in Republican times, even less than the Greek city-states. The Greek poleis often invested income such as wealthy citizens’ donations in social welfare, thus brokering between wealthy private donors and less well-to-do persons. The church, living in private household structures during the first centuries, took over the social-welfare tasks of the Greco-Roman household and reviewed them in the light of Hebrew and Hellenistic-Jewish moral traditions.

Highlights

  • The essay investigates if and how Greco-Roman theorists attempted to motivate altruistic behaviour and devise a social-welfare ethics

  • Greek ethical theory did not stylise alms giving as a special virtue,23 nor was there anything comparable in the Greco-Roman culture to the Israelite concept of poor people being special to God and better followers of their religion

  • Personal level, care for the poor was not a significant issue, but rather reduced, for example, to occasional giving to beggars,25 poor travellers or stranded sailors,26 or to alms giving to people in need in one’s community

Read more

Summary

MOTIVATIONS FOR ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOUR

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle considers it essential for a free male polis citizen, for an ἐλευθέριος, to freely donate from one’s assets, with such generosity being called ἐλευθεριότης Let the gifts be made without anything in return (γιγνέσθωσαν οὖν αἱ μεταδόσεις πρῶτον μὲν ἀντὶ μηδενός); because in this way they surprise and overcome the recipients more completely The motivation for such “noble” attitude appears to be selfish power play; seemingly selfless giving reinforces the superiority of the donor over against the recipient. Further examples of the do-ut-des mentality in Bolkestein ([1939] 1967:156-170) The objects of such reciprocal altruistic behaviour were people of equal or similar status or members of the own social clan, parents, children, relatives, especially brothers and friends. Modern science has corroborated the Greek proverb in Acts 20:35 that it is more rewarding to give than to receive:19 “Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness,” is the title of a 2008 study in the journal Science.20 Sensing that such pleasure adds a selfish aspect to the altruistic. Act, Epicharmos (in Plutarch, Publicola 15.5.7) held that taking pleasure (χαίρειν) when giving and true philanthropy are not the same pair of shoes (οὐ φιλάνθρωπος τύ γ’ ἐσσ’· ... χαίρεις διδούς)

ALTRUISTIC PRACTICES ON THE PRIVATE LEVEL
Giving to people in need in the community
Foundations and donations
Associations
Private households and patron-client relationships
SOCIAL WELFARE PRACTICES BY THE STATE
Grain distributions
Money and meal distributions
Land distributions
Education
Medical care and care for invalids
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call