I’m sorry im evil and calling everyone bad ididnt mean to im sorry ill go away now im really sorry marley
I’ve always thought generosity was a description of disproportionate charity.
If I posit that charity is giving without expecting return. (Or explicitly expecting no return which is almost, but not quite, the same thing.) If the law had been as the OP posited, then you would be giving on the condition that you were repaid in full, even if by another agency and thus that would not have been charitable. But, as the government and civilization at large approved the laws that enable that transaction, neither would it have been unethical. Whether or not it’s immoral is relative to so many factors that it’s impossible to determine objectively - a Christian has a different relationship to the responsibility of sharing his wealth than, say, a Sikh or a penitent Buddhist monk.
This question is functionally equivalent to asking, “is it moral to pay only the taxes you legally owe, without putting in a little extra?”
Stop messing up a decent concept with the quasi-spiritual mumbo jumbo you know that absolutely no one else on the board agrees with.
But, Marley, he is right that one is not generous if one’s motives are to save money. The word only has meaning if you give without a desire to get back. Otherwise, it’s functionally no different than just paying for something. I’m not being generous when I pay my phone bill–I’m paying for a service. Someone who gave only because it saved them money would be paying for the ability to save money.
The fact that the food would taste the same is irrelevant. The food would taste the same if it were raised by selling off children. You wouldn’t call those buyers generous, would you?