Without limiting itself to the ancient theological definitions of the term, "Charity" is an emotional state generated by the internalization of an abstract idea related to personal relationships. It is a symbolization.
A "symbol" is a sign that represents an idea. The idea of "Charity" is probably the most notable invention of Christianity (it did not exist in Buddhism or Stoicism, the great earlier ethical schools). It is not simply "compassion" nor is it limited to encouraging altruistic acts: it is a lifestyle, a particular conception of human relationships that is only possible through the internalization of a pattern of behavior based on benevolence and rationality. "Rationality" is what differentiates and enriches Charity compared to a mere state of piety (closer to modern "empathy").
Sigmund Freud already considered that this emotional state could be the result of the cultural manipulation of "libido." Since the Freudian "libido" may be debatable, others refer to maternal love and its derivatives as the instinctual origin of "Charity," which, like fire, agriculture, or the wheel, is a human invention, a tool of the mind.
Charity isn't the only possible source of altruism. The intention to benefit others without receiving any material reward in return may have another origin. But a society based on the behavioral principles of Charity would have altruism as an expression of economic life, would lack a political form (politics implies coercive power and therefore denies benevolence), and would be structured around an "ideology of behavior."
The objective of this ideology of behavior would logically be to facilitate the internalization of "Charity" by each and every individual who, together, would form society.
It is not "education" in the current sense of didacticism. Didacticism implies the fallacious claim to train individuals to make rational decisions through free will, regardless of their cultural circumstances. Immanuel Kant considered himself free to the extent that his erudition allowed him an informed use of reason. And yet, in fundamental aspects of his beliefs, he proved to be a man of his time, with the cultural prejudices of his era.
It is quite possible that a future humanity living in an altruistic economy with an ideology of Charity will find the benevolent behavior we would consider "extreme" today quite natural. Just as today, it seems natural (in the West) to reject the abuse of children and animals (something that did not happen earlier). This is how moral evolution works. However, for today's individual, who accepts as inevitable that sub-Saharan immigrants will drown trying to reach Europe or that the high-tech industry will spend billions of dollars producing cosmetics instead of treatments for the curable diseases that continue to occur, moral evolution has not yet taken its final step.
Until now, the process of internalizing moral standards of benevolence has occurred erratically, the result of a confluence of social circumstances of all kinds. We have had religions and political ideologies, but not "ideologies of behavior."
Charity is "implanted" in human behavior through a variety of psychological strategies. Not through didacticism or education. Through emulation, yes. But for it to occur through emulation, the necessary "influential minority" must first exist.
In a behavioral sense, for the individual who embraces "Charity" as a symbolization to internalize a lifestyle pattern, the practice of Charity involves aggression control (nonviolence), fostering a sense of empathy, rationality, practicing benevolence, visualizing benevolence (non-histrionic acting), humility, a sense of community, and, of course, effective altruism as the basis for economic behavior. This might be sufficient to motivate a minority of individuals who, by temperament or personal circumstances, are drawn to a lifestyle that involves sacrifice but also provides emotional rewards (idealism, affection, social ties).
Based altruistic action on ethical choice through free will (like Kant, like the Stoics) could transform the world if the dimensions of this choice are reached at the level to which many EA activists aspire. Simply put, the cultural consequences of this social change would be so impactful that this economic fact alone would lead to all kinds of human changes in the direction of benevolence.
But if that expectation is not met it would be utilitarian to keep in mind the possibility that seems most logical, which is that individuals are more likely to be emotionally committed to Charity before engaging in altruistic acts and not the other way around.
Charity, as a human experience and cultural alternative, could be more attractive to the individual as a motivation for altruism than the altruistic act generated by a rationality suspiciously linked to a current culture not based on Charity. As a lifestyle, Charity involves not only sacrifice (if it is necessary to act altruistically) but also a non-materialistic reward, as it presupposes a social system based on benevolence and rationality, with all that this entails (especially on an emotional level). Of course, in the eyes of mainstream society, the sacrifices may seem excessive and the rewards meager... but all cultural change is built on a minority.
EA accepts the idea that altruistic donations already entail rewards (there are psychological studies that seem to confirm this). The question is: if we are utilitarians, wouldn't it be appropriate to seek increased rewards derived from altruistic actions, if we already assume that we act motivated by them? The greater the non-materialistic rewards, the more likely individuals are to be motivated to act altruistically.
To claim that we can act altruistically without personal motivation is fallacious. Even the Stoics had a personal motivation to fulfill their moral duty (honor?).
What we need is an effective motivation that doesn't contradict the ends. That motivation can be Charity as a lifestyle or ethos. And it also makes sense as an effective basis for moral evolution in general terms. In socialism (social equality through coercive, political means), the end may justify the means; but in Charity, the means and the ends must be of the same nature.
Considering Charity as the surest source of altruism also implies shifting the priority of organizing effective altruistic action from the perspective of a behavioral ideology.
The first objective to be achieved must be to contribute to moral evolution. Altruistic causes must be selected from the perspective of their potential impact on mainstream society: the visualization of the embryo of a culture of Charity as a rewarding alternative for a morally influential minority. The utilitarian principle is incontestable: no one can reject the priority of serving causes like the malaria campaign, where lives can be saved in poor countries for relatively little money. However, long-term causes are viewed much more equivocally.
What practical form could the development of a behavioral ideology in the sense of Charity initially take?
At the very least, it would be advisable to establish a social network of assistance and support for existing donors of effective altruism, in order to create a community and develop a lifestyle based on Charity. Apparently, loneliness, disorientation, and burnout are problems that are already occurring.
