Charity, Necessity, and Theft — Why the Triadic Model Matters
A recurring confusion in modern moral and political debate is the failure to distinguish charity, necessity, and theft. When these collapse into one another, society ends up justifying coercion in the name of compassion — and excusing cruelty in the name of order.
The triadic model of the human person — body (physical), mind (intellectual), and will (volitional/spiritual) — resolves this confusion cleanly from first principles.
The First Principle: Volition Is Morally Primary
Human beings are moral agents because they can choose.
Rights exist to protect the space in which that choosing occurs.
This is why rights are negative by nature:
- They restrain interference with a person’s will
- They do not entitle one person to command another’s labor
Property, law, and economics all presuppose this reality. Without volition, responsibility collapses.
Charity: A Free Act of the Will
Charity only exists when it is voluntary.
- The giver chooses to give
- The recipient receives without entitlement
- Both remain moral agents
This is why coerced redistribution is not charity — it removes the will from both sides and produces no moral good, only administration.
Necessity: Preservation of Agency, Not Entitlement
There are circumstances where survival is at stake. In these cases, moral reasoning shifts — not because property disappears, but because life is prerequisite to agency.
This is not a “right to other people’s stuff.”
It is a temporary moral override justified only to preserve existence.
Biblical example: Gleaning
In Levitical law, landowners are commanded not to harvest the edges of their fields, allowing the poor to glean by hand.
Two details matter:
It remains private property
The land is not seized or redistributed.The limit is practical, not extractive
Gleaning is done by hand — a handful, not cartloads.
This preserves:
- The dignity of the poor (they work)
- The volition of the owner (no seizure)
- The moral boundary between survival and exploitation
Gleaning is not entitlement. It is mercy structured to avoid coercion.
Common Law Parallel: In Extremis
Common law recognized the same principle through in extremis doctrine:
- Taking food or shelter to avoid imminent death is treated differently than theft for preference
- The justification ends once survival is secured
- It does not establish a standing claim or precedent
This doctrine exists precisely because law implicitly recognizes volition as ontologically real.
Theft: Violation of Another’s Will
Theft occurs when someone:
- Uses another person’s property
- To serve preference or advantage
- Without consent
- As a standing claim
This is categorically different from necessity.
Why Government Welfare Fails the Moral Test
Modern welfare systems erase these distinctions:
- Charity becomes compulsory
- Necessity becomes permanent entitlement
- Responsibility dissolves into “the system”
- Volition is removed from both giver and receiver
What results is evil without villains — harm without accountability.
The Clean Moral Boundary
The triadic model preserves what modern frameworks cannot:
- Charity → voluntary alignment with the good
- Necessity → temporary moral override to preserve life
- Theft → violation of agency for preference
- Welfare entitlement → institutionalized coercion
All without confusion. All without contradiction.
Final Thought
A society that understands volition can show mercy without destroying justice, and uphold justice without killing mercy.
When we forget the will, we lose both.