Traditionally, alms are considered as a small amount of money given to a beggar for charity. To donate food, clothes, medicine, and so on, may also be considered as alms. For several religions it is a charitable act done to the needy. In Abrahamic religions, alms are given to help the poor and to please God.

Allan Kardec did not condemn alms. He considered it as a material charity.¹ Kardec believed that if – being able to do so – one refuses to assist those who need our help materially, is an act of extreme and cruel selfishness, and many a times he asked the members of the Parisian Society for Spiritist Studies, to make donations for emergency relief of the victims of climatic tragedies or other calamities. ⁱⁱ

Therefore, our attitude towards all help should, as a general rule, be favorable and optimistic, considering that every good action is good in itself. Emmanuel reminds us that charity is sublime in all aspects in which it is revealed to us and under no circumstances should we forget the amazing selflessness of those who distribute bread and clothing, medicine and help for the body, learning solidarity and teaching it.ⁱⁱⁱ

What is being discussed among Spiritist scholars are some aspects related to almsgiving, particularly if the material aid must be given unconditionally and indistinctly - without looking at whom, or if it should be accompanied by a critical and special examination of each particular situation.

Two opinions can be identified. The first one is the attitude of those who think that almsgiving - as a manifestation of compassion - should be exempted of all logical reasoning and should be donated to those who ask for it spontaneously, freely and unconditionally - an act of love for others, a manifestation of the spontaneous kindness that must be in all of us. They recognize the importance of providing the unfortunate with elements to overcome the causes of poverty, but they do not agree to rationalize the material aid. Some say, justifying themselves: I do my part! If the false-beggar acts wrongly it is his problem!

The second opinion is found in those who believe that giving alms without distinction can induce laziness and the exploitation of others, especially when given freely, on the streets, and claim that real help should be focused on providing education, decent work, moral support – help the needy to get out of their condition of poverty or misery by their own effort. According to this way of thinking, alms should be given occasionally, in emergency situations.

What was Allan Kardec’s opinion regarding this debate? The issue does not seem to us to have been fully solved among the Spirits who manifested themselves to our Encoder, since we identified mediumistic messages that sometimes go in different directions, although Kardec, apparently, had a well-defined position in this regard. We highlight the message Charity, signed by Vicente de Paulo and published in the Spiritist Magazine of July 1858. In the seventh paragraph, the author states: When you let your heart be open to the plea of​​the first unfortunate person who reaches out to you; when you give him something, without questioning whether his misery is not pretended or whether his illness stems from an addiction he has given rise to; when you abandon all justice in divine hands; when you leave the punishment of false misery to the Creator; when, at last, you practice charity solely for the happiness it provides and without inquiring of its usefulness, then you will be God's beloved children and he will draw you to him.

The highlighted thoughts follow the first opinion: unconditional material help. There are ideas in the text referring to material help without questioning, without investigating the cause and the legitimacy of the request or its usefulness.

Kardec does not seem to have fully agreed with the ideas presented. After the message, the Encoder dialogs with the entity, as follows:

Kardec: - Charity can be understood in two ways: alms itself and loving others. When you said that it was necessary for the heart to open itself to the plea of the unfortunate person who reaches out to us, without questioning whether his misery would not be pretended, did you not want to speak of charity from the point of view of alms?

Vicente de Paulo - Yes; only in that paragraph.

Kardec: - You said that it was necessary to leave to God’s justice the appreciation of false misery. It seems to us, however, that giving without judgment to people who have no need, or who could earn a living from honest work, will be to stimulate addiction and laziness. If lazy people found other people's purse very easily, they would multiply to infinity, to the detriment of the true unfortunates.

Vicente de Paulo: - You can distinguish those who can work and then charity forces you to do everything to provide them with work; however, there are also false poor people, capable of skillfully simulating miseries they do not have; it is for these ones that all justice must be left to God.

We can see that Kardec, apparently, has contrary opinions regarding the entity’s way of thinking, questioning its real validity of providing a material aid to those who could pay for themselves: [...] giving without discernment could stimulate addiction and laziness. Kardec adds that the lazy ones would multiply to the infinite, to the detriment of the true unfortunates.

It is evident from the text that Vicente de Paulo reflects about what Kardec says and makes a note in relation to the previous placement: you can distinguish those who can work. For these ones, the entity – answering Kardec - proposes, an action that promotes decent work, sensitizing them to do so and assisting them in this commitment.

Kardec’s thinking is aligned with the opinion of specialists in social assistance and human improvement, according to which almsgiving does not dignify or improve human beings, often acting as a stimulus to indolence. In Brazil, hundreds of municipal social assistance secretariats work to enlighten citizens about the best attitude towards the beggar, discouraging the widespread practice of alms. In Sao Paulo it was found that a child can earn, on average, R$ 500 per month at city traffic lights. The experts ask: So, is it possible to get them off the street? ^iv

When evolutionary psychologists study the evolution of human social groups, particularly in the long period of our prehistory, they are faced with the “problem of the cheater or profiteer”, individuals who do not contribute, but enjoy what is generated by collective action. ^v

One of the most important traits in our psychology concerns our social functioning, in particular our ability to work as a team. Except for social insects that, by genetic imposition, serve the colony, this collectivist behavior is rarely seen among animals.

As soon as our ancestors left the trees, about 7 million years ago, our very existence depended on the ability to work together. It was this need for collective action that produced the most important psychological change that allowed us to prosper in the savannah, in addition to just surviving. At some point in our evolutionary history, our ancestors joined in collective defense, and from then on, everyone had a greater chance of survival. Individuals in groups who learned to work cooperatively had an enormous advantage. Because anatomically, our species is a fiasco: we run and jump badly, we don't have sharp teeth and powerful claws for attack and defense, our childhood is the longest and most fragile in the animal kingdom, and yet we are today, the most successful species on the planet. We owe this to the union of efforts for the collective good.

However, there is a major threat to cooperation: parasitism, or the tendency to escape heavy work and, at the same time, share the benefits. As we evolved to cooperate with each other, we also developed a system for detecting cheaters and a strong emotional reaction to profiteers, maintaining group harmony by developing a particular sense of justice.

The most powerful weapon our ancestors used to fight the cheater and the lazy was ostracism. To be expelled from a group of primitive men was a death sentence in a tremendously hostile world. For this reason, our ancestors quickly developed a strong emotional reaction to the threat of being placed outside the group or losing their value to peers. This explains, in our contemporary society, the insurmountable need to be well regarded and valued before others. Social rejection is incredibly painful.

Punishment of the profiteer and the cheater was essential to the remarkable development of the species Homo sapiens, and today it is the mainspring in maintaining a reasonably stable social life.

This sense of justice does not exist among our closest cousins, chimpanzees and are responsible for apparently altruistic behaviors, which, in fact, denote a deep evolutionary delay.

For example, consider what happens when chimpanzees hunt monkeys. Monkey hunting is one of his few collective activities, because monkeys find it very difficult to escape when chimpanzees come from all sides. But even when chimpanzees hunt in groups, not everyone gets involved. Some remain seated, lazily watching the chaos around them. When the hunt is over, they share their prey, food rich in calories. What is surprising is that those who were just watching also get their piece of meat. Their chimpanzee colleagues make little or no distinction between omissions and collaborators.

A clear contrast is observed with humans, even children of four years pay close attention to those who help and those who do not. When they earn sweets by working as a team, they hide from those who did not help, but share with those who helped. When forced to share with lazy people, they say: - This is not fair!

This may not seem very friendly - it could even be a behavior to be discouraged: after all, sharing is loving - but from an evolutionary point of view it is crucial. Animals that do not distinguish between collaborators and viewers will never have the ability to create and sustain effective teams.

 Another example, even more impressive, is found in the account of the primatologist Jane Goodall, when she observed chimpanzees in Gombe, Tanzania. Melissa is a chimpanzee who has just had a baby. Passion is another chimpanzee in Melissa's group. Pom is Passion's teenage daughter and both are violent psychopaths. One late afternoon, Melissa, with her three-week-old baby, was on a low tree branch when Passion and Pom attacked her violently with punches and bites, leaving her stunned.

Then they took the baby and ate it without the mother, who helplessly followed the scene, could do nothing. Fifteen minutes after the loss of the baby, Melissa approached Passion. The two faced each other; then Melissa reached out and Passion touched her bloody hand. While Passion continued to feed on the baby, Melissa started to take care of her own injuries. Her face was very swollen, her hands lacerated, her bottom bleeding badly. Soon afterwards Melissa again reached out to Passion, the two females held hands briefly.

What most disturbs the biologists who examined this fact was not cannibalism itself, as it occasionally occurs among chimpanzees, but the fact that Melissa reconciled so quickly with the two killers. Worse, this was not an isolated incident. Passion and Pom continued to kill and eat newborns in their group for years. The other mothers probably reacted to a large extent like Melissa, fighting with all their might during the attack, but then accepting their fate and doing nothing about it. Doing nothing about those who use antisocial behavior for their own benefit is not a good strategy in maintaining a healthy community.

A recent example of the “problem of the profiter” is found in ranchers and fishermen in the Pantanal of Pocone, Mato Grosso ^vi. In 2013, the fishermen colony numbered around 400 professional fishermen. Being registered as a fisherman gave them some advantages, among them receiving a monthly salary during the months of November to February, when fishing was prohibited because of the piracema (period of reproduction of the fish). But during the period of piracema, even receiving their wages, many fishermen fish at night, hidden, and offer fish at high prices, due to the lack of the product at this time of year. On the other hand, many individuals who have professions or even the wives of fishermen are registered as professional fishermen to gain access to the improvement.

Well, in January 2015, the government decided to review all the benefits offered, because it found that in some cities in the north of the country there were more fishermen than residents.

In The Gospel According to Spiritism, ^vii Kardec makes use of the expression professionals of begging when referring to those individuals who make other people's goodwill a way of life, keeping themselves out of decent work, as real social parasites. Kardec does not proclaim insensitivity or indifference to these people, but wants to show that the help strategy must be different, since serving them simply in their plea would not be the best way to help them.

Kardec admits that, in certain situations, one should consider the personal responsibility of those who come to beg, by little effort, exploratory attitude or accommodation to their own luck, without denying, however, that society is also responsible for this condition, for not having promoted, through clarification and a good example, an identification with the ethical values ​​of human dignity, responsibility and fraternity. Kardec reminds that if a good moral education had taught them to practice the law of God, they would not have fallen into the excesses that caused their perdition. When referring to the truly unfortunate, Kardec recognizes the need for society to take care of those who find themselves without the minimum conditions to bear the costs of their own material survival. In the absence of a family, it is up to society: the strong must work for the weak. Not having this family, society must take the place of this family. It is the law of charity. ^viii

It is important to point out that, at the time of the Encoder, social security, as an aid and assistance to the sick and elderly, did not exist. The first social security institutes appeared well after Kardec's death, at the end of the 19th century, initially in Germany and soon after in other countries in Europe. Thus, the sick and elderly who were unable to provide their own support were dependent on the charity of others. There was no retirement due to age or illness, health insurance, paid leave for health care and other social services that exist today in virtually every country on the globe.

We conclude by remembering that, curiously, Kardec subsequently publishes the message of Vicente de Paulo, in The Gospel According to Spiritism, Ch. 13, item 12, deleting from the text the paragraph alluded to by us.

_________________

i Spiritist journey in 1862 - Speeches made at general meetings of the Spiritists of Lyon and Bordeaux III and Spiritist Magazine, 1862 / September - A reconciliation by Spiritism.

ⁱⁱ Spiritist Magazine - Journal of Psychological Studies - 1862 / February -Subscription in favor of the Lionese workers; Spiritist Magazine - 1863 / January - Subscription in favor of the Rouen workers; Spiritist Magazine - 1866 / November - Subscription in favor of the flooded.

ⁱⁱⁱ  Fonte Viva, ch. 60.

^iv   Gilberto Dimenstein in Folha de Sao Paulo, 04/10/2005.

^v  The unlikely evolution, William Von Hippel.

^vi Evolutionary Psychology Handbook, Yamamoto.

^vii  The Gospel According to Spiritism, ch. 13, item 4.

^viii The Book of Spirits, item 889.

^ix  The Book of Spirits, item 685-a.