Prompt: “By definition, charity is generosity in offering money, food, and help to the needy. To some people, such kindness should be boundless, others argue for a limit to it.” Which opinion do you support? In about 300 words, present your arguments.

Intrinsically, charitable work is of the clearest manifestations of human’s benevolence towards one another, regularly seen either in the offer of sustenance, financial support, or help to the needy. While a number of people advocate such kindness ought to be unbounded, others claim the contrary, stating that there should be a limitation to it. From my perspective, I voice approval of the latter, in that I believe Ċ In the first place, the intrinsic values of humanitarian aid may depreciate should it be capitalized on by people for their own sakes. In other words, be it inadvertently or not, some charitable organizations reach out to those who do not fall into the category of being underprivileged, thus paving the way for them to take advantage of the so-called support. For example, there exist several cases in which commoners hoard a substantial amount of money in many saving accounts, yet at the same time still being classified as those living in monetary destitute households. Rather than aid people in overcoming hardship in life, philanthropy now gives rise to some individuals’ sluggishness and dependence. This substantiantiates the claim that there should be a boundary to charity, otherwise it might go against its original aims, being an exploitative mechanism for the indolent and the reliant. Ċ What is more, it is a grim reality that philanthropic activities are at times abused to engender profiteering by those in authority or by benefactors themselves. That is, prior to being handed over to the impoverished, donations received may have already lined the pockets of many officials, resulting in money being cut down considerably when given to those in need. For instance, as a publicity method, some celebrities bring out products with a promising pledge that the revenue raised will serve charitable purposes, though nobody is informed how the process goes afterwards. Hence, a limit is much needed so that philanthropy is not distorted, facilitating hypocrisy and greed. Ċ All things considered, notwithstanding the fact that humanitarian work marks a praiseworthy feature of morality, it is a limit that plays an indispensable role to ensure its meaningfulness. Therefore, I am supportive of the latter statement, believing that limitation to charitable work is here to stay.