Charity, is it right?

A very interesting question, which attempted to demonstrate a logical fallacy, tempted me to mention something of great antique value! A lost tradition it is. This question seemed to accept nothing less than a time tested concept.
The benefits of adherence to this ‘concept’(not even literally enacting the same ritual) is so immense, and so logic-defying, that I did not muster courage to elaborate in the answer. Nor do I intend to do it here.
It is a charity showered on me, if it happens to even stay within the reader’s attention during a casual glance.
Regards,
Psn(11th January, 2010)

The question:
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/answer;_ylt=AtPUI.4IaGvPqpQ2KsEj44uDHQx.;_ylv=3

Are their degrees of "right"?
Consider these questions:
Is it right to pay your taxes?
Is it right to contribute to a charity?
If yes to both, is it more "right" to contribute to charities than just paying your taxes?
Is it possible to say something is more right? Or simply, right is right?
If it is right to contribute to a charity, what if you contribute more money to that charity?
Is that "more right" than contributing less to a charity?
If it is right to contribute to charities, does not contributing make it not right? ethically?
If something is expected, such as paying taxes, does that disqualify it from being right?
What about holding the door for a woman (in places or circumstances - or eras - where it is/was expected)?Does not doing that make it not right? an ethical mishap?I apologize for any repetition or syntax oddities, but I think it is an interesting concept to think about.


My answer:
Oh! It is not just about an 'interesting' concept.This concept was understood too well, and quite deeply in ancient India.There was a whole class of people who lived entirely on food received as charity. The parents of a bride felt it their fortune to give away their daughter as a 'charity' to such a person who has vowed to live only with food received as charity. Such a stupid looking vow led to tremendous potentials. This person did not have to follow too many ethics. He held the priorities of society higher than his own (no wealth problem, so no taxes to comply with!). He was the most learned person by virtue of the birth in that class, which had prohibited encroaching any other profession or trade, except teaching, which was without any fee. The unmarried males, the bachelors were allowed to receive cooked food as charity, while the married males were allowed to receive only raw grains, which should be just enough to last not more than a day! This tradition existed for thousands of years.Now, to cite a small bye-product or a fall out of such a vow, another class of people who were traders or businessmen, complemented with another vow, that is , they do not eat till their family-folk, the wife in particular did not offer food to that wandering mendicant, who vowed to live on charity-food!When I looked at this question, all seems to become only too clear to me. This charity is not only right, not only more right than the taxes, but conceptually so valid that it stood the test of time for about 5000 years! There was no authority to monitor adherence to this rule! It was entirely on a voluntary, self-imposed basis! Even the way of life (given a name as a religion since 16th century AD), has no leader, authority, or religious head in common. The religious aspects are not relevant to this question. But perhaps, the way charity was looked at by the most ancient civilization is worth mentioning.