Work Text:
Giving back to society should not be a legal requirement, but a widely endorsed practice. Community outreach and mutual aid becoming mandatory would greatly help the world as a whole, assuming the law is followed and done with good intent. However, laws are not always followed, and it is especially uncommon to follow the law with good intentions. Whereas a world where giving back to society is highly encouraged, rather than punished, would be more realistically possible and still benefit the world as a whole.
Contrary to what government officials might want the community to believe, there is a difference between legality and ethics/morality. [1] Giving food to those who are hungry and unable to afford food is a common and effective method of giving back to society, and yet food waste is one of this country's largest contributors to landfills. The United States alone produces 60 million tons of food waste in one year alone, food waste having a financial value of nearly $218 billion dollars or 310 billion meals wasted. [2] A restaurant or grocery store has left over produce after a work day, all perfectly edible and delicious even. The ethical and good thing to do would be to take what was still edible and give that to anyone in need of a meal. However, the legal requirement is for businesses to dump all the leftover consumable items after one day of business. The ethical obligation to feed society regardless of means, in this case, is illegal. If the law is followed, we are actively taking away from society and a person's livelihood. Giving back to the community being law does not mean the law is good.[3]
When the law is not ethical, there are times when unethical means are used to support one’s community. One example could include the assassination of United healthcare CEO, Brian Thompson. It is wrong both ethically and legally to kill a person, and yet the general public cheers in support for Thompson's death. “UnitedHealthcare appears to be particularly cruel and arbitrary. Some reports suggest that the company is among the most aggressive in the industry at denying claims.” says Matt Ford in their article Why Many Americans Are Celebrating the UnitedHealthcare CEO’s Murder published December 6,2024.[4] At the time of his death, Thompson was estimated to have a net worth of over $42 million.[5] Average cost of living in America in 2025 is estimated to be $2,800 to $6,000 [6] with Brian Thompson having a net worth of over 7,000,000 times the highest estimate. The public does not cheer for the fact a person has been killed, they cheer for the fact a millionaire who used denial of medical insurance as a source of major income is gone.
In the instance that a law was put into place enforcing people to give back to a community, who is to say the general public would follow these laws? Why are any laws followed? Laws have consequences, the law aims not to reduce crime or reeducation claimed criminals but too punish those who they deem guilty. Laws mean punishment for anyone who disobeys, breeding fear in the public. Following instructions, or in this instance laws, in fear leads to more unrest among those who are told to follow. Good actions reinforced by rewards and wider endorsements is a more effective way to get good things done compared to the law. Is fear enough to make everyone follow the law, even when the law is helpful, does that mean people will follow?[7]
Looking at the larger picture, that of mega corporations and money hungry businesses, we as a community are given things not out of good will but out of pity and desire to save face.[8] Giving back in the bare minimum to make oneself look better is a common practice in large corporations, donations and community outreach can often be used as a tax write off and don’t simply for selfish interest. Philanthropy is competitive, the action in a vacuum is good but the reason behind it is for self serving.[9] However, if no laws are put in place to redistribute the wealth that these mega corporations obtain they would keep that wealth for themselves. Laws must be put in place, regardless of laws handling giving back to one’s society, to handle distribution of wealth. Large businesses would not give if they did not gain in return, it is simply not profitable enough to them.
In order to truly succeed in giving back to a community, mutual aid and community service need not to be legally required. The world and community itself need to change the way it talks about community service and communal comforts. Legalization does not change the morals of the wider society, assisting a community does not change what is legal. Good actions should not be a legal requirement, for it takes away from the internal growth and development of the person. Encouraging good deeds can do more for a community than laws ever can.