Once, on New Year's Eve, Mykola, a resident of Dvorichne, went to visit a friend. His friend was left without a wife, eating only peas and beans, and so on... Mykola took a jar of tomatoes, bacon, and, of course, bread and something stronger to it. After all, New Year's Eve is a holy occasion. He got ready to visit, and on his way back, Mykola met a Russian drone. It didn't matter that he was in his seventies and had never been in the military. The “heroic” Russian drone pilot did not spare Mykola. Head of the evacuation team Serhiy Kharlamov with Mykola The explosion contused the man, and shrapnel hit his legs so much that he lost a lot of blood from his heart. Mykola would not have celebrated the New Year if his friend hadn't come running to find out what the drone had done. He waited for four hours for medical help, but first the soldiers helped Mykola by putting splints on his injured legs. They only asked him to return the tires when the need for them passed, as they no longer had any. Then he was taken to Kupyansk, where qualified specialists fought for his life. Mykola regained consciousness only a day later in the Kharkiv Regional Hospital. Kharkiv doctors tried to save him for almost a month. Fortunately, they succeeded. At the moment, Mykola is still bedridden, his legs are fixed with the Elizarov apparatus, but the prospect of recovery is quite reliable. However, now the next dilemma arises: how to bring a patient in such a situation from the hospital to his home. Especially with the critical shortage of ambulances and the fact that the patient lives 120 kilometers away in the countryside. It should also be added that Mykola is a corpulent man, as they say, and his unhealed wounds cause him severe pain with every careless movement. This is where the medical and evacuation crews of the "Volunteer - 68" team come in handy, as they make their flights on a daily basis. Just transferring a person in this condition from a hospital bed to a medical gurney is no longer a challenge. It is technically, physically and emotionally difficult. Getting such a patient to their destination on war-torn roads is also not easy. However, lifting him on a soft stretcher up several floors, through stairwells of the Soviet design that were not adapted for this purpose, without causing him pain, is a task on the verge of being impossible. It was difficult to transport Mykola, but the experience and goodwill of the "Volunteer - 68" crew helped to make it as correct and psychologically easy as possible. For this, the volunteers heard many words of gratitude from Mr. Mykola and his wife Tetyana, as the guys deserved them. Artur Vsevolozhskyi

In the NGO “CNGD ‘Volunteer-68’,” there is a special unit that, by the form and essence of its activity, is called “Caregiver.” Currently, these are women—mostly IDPs—who have prior experience in the field of social or medical training. They work in dormitories in Kharkiv, where elderly people evacuated from combat zones and threatened territories are now residing. All of them have IDP status and, for the most part, suffer from serious physical limitations.   On average, each caregiver has about fifteen wards. Their responsibilities include monitoring compliance with proper hygiene, nutrition, and timely medication intake. On a social level, our colleagues can help with grocery and medicine purchases. They can call a doctor or contact case managers regarding legal issues, humanitarian aid, transportation, or any personal problems that arise among the beneficiaries of NGO “CNGD ‘Volunteer-68’.”   However, the main aspect of their work, arising from the very nature of their activity, is psychological support and emotional engagement during interactions between caregivers and their wards. Listening, calming, and instilling hope in the hearts of elderly, often disoriented, and sometimes seriously ill people is the daily task of our colleagues. At the same time, remaining empathetic and positive is a prerequisite for professional and deeply responsible performance of their duties. One might think these are just dry facts and the functions of executors, but behind them lie human relationships, often filled with high emotional tension. The wards miss their caregivers: there is room for everything here—resentment, secrets, and jealousy. Riding the crest of this emotional wave, caregivers “surf” through psychological swings even beyond their shifts.   To strengthen resilience and enhance the overall awareness of our caregivers, NGO “CNGD ‘Volunteer-68’” has initiated and conducted a series of training courses on psychology, first aid, rehabilitation, and legal aspects of caring for vulnerable population groups. In this way, we strive to express our respect and interest in the personal growth and emotional well-being of our colleagues. At the beginning of spring, it is customary in the post-Soviet space to congratulate women on “Women’s Day.” Regardless of the overly sexualized and gendered nature this red date acquired in the former USSR, Women's Solidarity Day still signifies gender emancipation and social progress, rather than just male attention with flowers.    However, social progress, enriched by women's intuition, makes it seemingly incomparably more inclusive for all social strata, branches, and niches that make up humanity.   And the symbol of this more inclusive world, which does not leave behind the poor and sick, nor those who do not fit into conventional norms, can arguably be the figure of the Caregiver.   So, despite the fact that early March in our region is traditionally cold and gloomy, and in present times also explosive and bloody, we congratulate our women caregivers, along with women worldwide, on this bright holiday of Empathy and Progress. Artur Vsevolozhskyi

The crews of the NGO "Volunteer - 68" carry out evacuation flights to rescue people with limited mobility not only from the threatened frontline areas. We have also repeatedly participated in events coordinated by the office of the Ukrainian Parliamentary Commissioner Dmytro Lubinets to exchange Ukrainians who remained in the occupied territories against their will. It has always been about evacuating civilians with physical disabilities, which is the specificity and priority of our organization. On New Year's Eve 2025, the crew of the "Volunteer - 68" went to the border with Belarus to pick up sixteen-year-old Georgiy, a disabled person since childhood diagnosed with cerebral palsy. Heorhiy came under occupation, one might say, from the first hours of the war, because at the time of the invasion he was in a children's neurological dispensary in Oleshky. His brother Petro, his only relative, had been trying to get his younger brother back for almost three years. And finally, thanks to the joint efforts of the Ombudsman's Office, special services and exchange negotiation teams, it became possible. At first, Heorhiy was sent from Oleshky to Moscow, where, according to him, he was fattened up. The Russians probably intended the exchange to bring them a certain media bonus: look how caring we are. Then the guy was sent to Minsk, where Petro met him, and from there the brothers were taken to a certain place on the border with Ukraine, where the evacuation crew of the "Volunteer - 68" Center was waiting for them. Unfortunately, we cannot tell you exactly how our crew was organized to enter the territory of Belarus, because it was a special operation, the details of which were insisted upon by the curators of the exchange. However, our colleagues crossed the Belarusian-Ukrainian border in a completely trivial way - through a checkpoint. From that moment on, the trip became completely regular and even routine. After all, the journey from Novi Yarylovychi on the border to Cherkasy, in the heart of Ukraine, was unusually calm and safe. Now Heorhiy, a surprisingly nice guy, is being taken care of in a specialized institution in Cherkasy. We wish him all the best in life.   Artur Vsevolozhskyi

The term "gaslighting" originates from the title of a play and later a famous Hollywood film, "Gaslight," in which a manipulative husband tries to drive his wife insane to take advantage of her inheritance. Today, the term refers to a form of psychological manipulation aimed at making someone doubt their perception of reality, rendering the victim dependent on the manipulator. There are many gaslighting techniques, including feigning misunderstanding, accusing the victim of distorting facts, questioning their ability to remember correctly or make reasonable conclusions, making them believe that their thoughts or needs are unimportant, or that they are emotionally unstable. The manipulator may also deny promises made, suggest that the victim is too intrusive or aggressive, and even portray themselves as the real victim. Gaslighting is one of the most common forms of gender-based violence. We encountered such a situation firsthand—here is Olena’s story. Olena and her cohabitant evacuated from Kupiansk at the beginning of 2024. Like most evacuees, they settled in a temporary accommodation facility. Olena had been suffering from mental disorders for 20 years and was under observation at a psychiatric dispensary in Kupiansk. During the occupation, her documents were damaged and became invalid by the time of the evacuation, making her dependent on her cohabitant’s “mediation,” as he willingly represented her interests. The man had full control over her, taking advantage of her vulnerable state and exerting constant pressure, preventing her from making decisions independently. Fear and uncertainty became her constant companions. This significantly worsened Olena’s mental health and complicated her stay in the shelter. After the administration of the temporary accommodation facility contacted our Center, case managers spoke with Olena, and a decision was made to relocate her to our "Without Limits" Shelter, where she received constant care and assistance in restoring her identity documents and disability certificate. At the shelter, Olena felt safe for the first time in many years. A professional psychotherapist and social workers began supporting her, helping her recognize her own value and understand that she should not live in fear and dependency. Her condition improved significantly—she started communicating with other shelter residents, becoming less withdrawn and more confident. We understood that she needed a long-term safe place to live with appropriate care. Thanks to our efforts, we found a specialized boarding house in one of the Baltic countries, where professional medical assistance, support, and decent living conditions awaited her. Today, Olena is in a safe place where she is treated with care and respect. She is no longer dependent on her abuser. Her life has changed completely. Artur Vsevolozhskyi

Violence in wartime, conflict, and post-conflict situations forms a background that systematically feeds the spirit of hatred, helplessness, and despair. It saturates the general atmosphere with fear and aggression, a sense of humiliation and lack of freedom, distorting human relationships and often turning them into their opposite. We witnessed the consequences of this through the story of Kateryna. The war came to their village suddenly, though troubles had already struck her family before that. Yet with the war, every day became a trial for 27-year-old Kateryna: explosions on the outskirts, cold nights, the inability to provide her children with the bare essentials… But the greatest ordeal wasn’t even that—her husband had fully turned into a nightmare. He beat her, abused the children—and there was no one to turn to for help. The war had robbed her of the opportunity to escape the abuser, to protect herself, to ensure the safety of her five-year-old and seven-year-old sons. With her last hope, Kateryna turned to the “Volunteer-68 Humanitarian Aid Centre,” begging for rescue. According to her, she had already given up on herself. She was only terrified for her children, who flinched at every explosion, heard constant swearing, and suffered beatings from their father. Our evacuation team, risking their own lives, took the family out of the danger zone and housed them in the “Without Limits” shelter—a temporary residence. There, for the first time in a long while, she could sleep peacefully, and the children could play without startling at every sound. However, Kateryna's emotional nature led her into another misstep. A week later, she decided to reunite with her new-old love in Kharkiv. She probably believed that everything would be fine with this new man’s support—that he wasn’t like the monster she had just escaped from. But the story repeated itself. A few months later, we received a phone call. Kateryna was crying, begging for someone to rescue her and the children. The “beloved” turned out to be just as cruel: he humiliated her, kicked her out onto the street, yelled at the children. Once again, we brought her back and placed her in a dormitory for internally displaced families with children. Kateryna again had a safe place to live, received social and psychological support, and was able to recover. She attended our training sessions on combating gender-based violence and learned to recognize its signs. But time passed, and once again her emotional tendencies and rosy fantasies led her down a dangerous path… And once again—a call, the same despair, the same tears. We rescued her again, housed her again in our shelter. She’s still with us. It seems Kateryna truly understands now that violence is not love and relationships can be built differently. We helped her file for divorce and begin the process of depriving her husband of parental rights. She managed to find a job, and her children finally started school. It seems that Kateryna is no longer afraid of an independent future. She’s building it herself, thanks to a rethinking of her own experience. That’s what we want to believe. Because the sense of inferiority, the learned helplessness that come with long-term exposure to any form of violence, strike cruelly at personal wholeness and make escaping from the grip of such experience an extremely difficult task. Artur Vsevolozhskyi

Domestic violence refers to the cruel treatment of an individual or group within household relationships, such as family, marriage, or cohabitation. Violence can be directed at intimate partners, women, men, parents, children, or any other close family members. This type of violence can be physical, psychological, economic, or a combination of all these forms. According to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing violence against women and domestic violence, domestic violence is a criminal offense.   During times of armed conflict, the number and intensity of domestic violence cases increase significantly. Without commenting on the progression of this phenomenon, we want to present a striking case that illustrates a broader trend threatening elderly individuals and people with disabilities who find themselves in conflict situations today.   The name of the victim has, of course, been changed. In a small village in the Kharkiv region, devastated by war, lived an elderly woman alone. Ulyana Serhiivna used a wheelchair, having lost both legs many years ago. Her life was a continuous struggle filled with hardship. Nevertheless, she held on because she still had hope—her beloved daughter.   At the onset of the war, her daughter fled to Germany, taking along her mother’s disability pension card—just in case Germany wasn’t as generous as people claimed.   Naturally, her own flesh and blood promised to take care of her from afar—to send money—and then disappeared somewhere in the vastness of the EU. Ulyana Serhiivna was left without any means of survival. The poor woman never complained; she merely justified her daughter’s actions to the neighbors, saying, "The young need it more." Kind people occasionally brought her food, and a social worker sometimes helped, but this did little to change the dire situation she was in. As the shelling intensified, Ulyana Serhiivna only gripped the arms of her wheelchair tighter and prayed.   When the daughter reappeared, having heard that her mother was starving, she finally started sending her a modest 3,000 hryvnias a month from Ulyana Serhiivna’s own pension. Out of this sum, she also rented her mother an apartment in a dangerous district of Kharkiv—on the eighth floor. This woman clearly knew how to be frugal—just not at her own expense.   Hoping that her suffering was finally over, Ulyana Serhiivna moved into the apartment. However, life on a high floor under constant artillery fire turned into a new nightmare: sirens, explosions, fear, and helplessness. Loneliness choked her like a noose. It was obvious that she could not escape this new prison on her own.   How she learned about the hotline of the NGO "CNGD ‘Volunteer-68,’" Ulyana Serhiivna doesn’t remember, but we heard her. That very day, she was evacuated from the danger zone and placed in our shelter, "Without Limits."   Ulyana Serhiivna received our standard care package: warmth, attention, and understanding. We provided her with medical, social, and psychological assistance. We helped her block her old card, restore access to her pension, and finally regain financial independence. Our team found a geriatric care home for her, where she not only received proper care but also a sense of security, dignity, and peace.   This story is just one of thousands of cases of domestic violence experienced by elderly people, especially those with disabilities. Their relatives, justifying their actions with "difficult circumstances," take their money, depriving them of basic means of survival. Unfortunately, these elderly victims do not complain because they do not know their rights and fear losing their connection with their loved ones. Artur Vsevolozhskyi

An exclusivist worldview gives rise to an ideology that opposes any non-stereotypical perception of reality, and communication based on such perception is filled with negativity toward various differences and innovations. Exclusivist, in this sense, means conservative, traditional, established—rejecting changes in language use, behaviour, or way of life. The ideal example of an aggressive exclusivist ideology was Hitler’s Nazism, which excluded from the national community anyone who could not prove the purity of their “Aryan” identity or was deemed inferior in any other way—such as having a disability, a non-heteronormative sexual orientation, or beliefs deemed “wrong” by the Nazis. A more contemporary example of ideological exclusivity is Moscow’s rashism. To be unlike them is both a crime and a disease. To hold different beliefs is considered a contagious perversion. Resistance to the “Russian order” must be punished severely. “Why, oh why are you so un-Russian?” asks the Russian in despair—and it sounds extremely, extremely exclusivist. Is Inclusivity a Political Technology? Supporters of exclusivism answer this question affirmatively. They are even convinced that inclusivity is a subversive ideology and an unscrupulous manipulation. Conservative traditionalists believe that the aim of inclusive propaganda is to ideologically disarm them, leading to the elevation of all sorts of minorities they have grown accustomed to despising—and through whom they have defined their own sense of superiority. On one hand, this is a pitiful form of egotism seeking self-justification and a basic xenophobia of a disoriented being in unfamiliar conditions. On the other, it is a cultural legacy—centuries of stigmatizing those who differed from the dominant majority, scapegoating them for misfortunes or unexplained evil. However, beyond cultural and psychological overlays, the essential distinction between the inclusive and exclusive paradigms of the pronoun “we” lies in this: the inclusive we  means “me, you, and perhaps somebody else too,” while the exclusive we  means “me, maybe somebody else, but definitely not you.” Thus, inclusivity embraces and draws into a shared circle all forms and expressions of humanity that do not threaten the expressions of humanity in others—or life itself. From this, for example, arises the ecological agenda, animal rights advocacy, the so-called political “pirate” movement, and many similar human rights initiatives. Those who support such ideas see inclusivity as the only approach capable of reducing societal conflict and protecting the dignity of historically marginalized social groups and life forms. However, implementing this approach in social relations primarily meets resistance in the form of rejection of inclusive rhetoric, especially through unfamiliar linguistic innovations. It is perceived as a targeted attack on traditionalist vocabulary that reflects discriminatory or abusive narratives once entrenched toward certain groups. People are disturbed primarily by the imposed language, not the meaning behind it, which they often refuse to see. After all, most reasonable people wouldn’t openly oppose respectful treatment of minorities and various personal differences. At least, such a trend existed from the second half of the 20th century until the early 2010s within the Eurocentric world. Demands for politically correct communication that denounce historical discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation are perceived by exclusivist proponents as an attack on language, cultural heritage, and nature itself. The paradox is that the desperate struggle of human rights advocates against discrimination and violence appears to even moderately conservative audiences as discrimination, violence, and subversion of the world order. Of course, it’s not only about rhetoric and unusual terminology. There is fear of the collapse of the patriarchal matrix, of educational and legal innovations, of tolerance toward immigration and multiculturalism—the gradual replacement of the traditionalist paradigm by liberal pluralism. It has now become clear that this process occurred too rapidly in historical terms and was not adopted by everyone, even within the relatively limited territory of Eurocentric civilization. Some nation-states or even separate communities were better prepared to accept the values of an inclusive worldview, others less so, and some not at all. It is also undeniable that right-wing populists have exploited the frustration caused by the spectre of total emancipation. Exclusivist Ideology on the March For the political agenda of right-wing populists, "dancing on human rights" has become a propaganda goldmine. They portray human rights as a sinister conspiracy, searing pitch from hell about to descend on people with conservative worldviews. Thirty years ago, right-wing populists were a fringe minority, but today they are a formidable force steamrolling political competitors. “There are no such things as ‘human rights,’” declare far-right extremists. “There are the inalienable rights of lineage, corporations, and the nation—of something unified and necessarily homogeneous. There are traditional values bequeathed by Adam and Eve, and no modification of these ancient values is acceptable. Your leaders will protect you from outsiders with an iron hand and punish outcasts. Your patriarchs won’t let you stray into spiritual ruin. Your men will give you everything you truly need. No perversions, no misunderstandings—everything is as clear and simple as daylight.” But is it really that clear and simple? And are these truly sincere beliefs? It recalls how late-Soviet ideologues of the stagnation era denounced “human rights” from the “rotten capitalist West” using similar arguments—and that was supposedly communist rhetoric. Today, the fight against “human rights” is led by a developer-president alongside a KGB-president, and nothing prevents them from promoting this worn-out narrative. To many, it sounds like a modern, optimistic, revolutionary program. This circle of such people is now wider than the circle of inclusive liberalism’s supporters, which is why the world is trembling again, as it did during the rise of Bolshevism, Nazism, and similar heresies. At present, it appears that the influence of exclusivist ideology is becoming global. How will this affect the social climate—including in Ukraine? The most obvious outcome may be that inclusive rhetoric will be rolled back in the public sphere. Attention to barrier-free policy will fade into the background. Human rights issues will also be de-prioritized—at least, efforts will be made to strip them of their universal character by excluding aspects such as gender and sexual orientation. Much will certainly be done to promote “traditional Ukrainian” values. Feminist and anti-colonial studies, which have greatly enriched Ukrainian social science, may also be side-lined in favour of a pseudo-patriotic discourse. And without doubt, the consequences of war and the country’s post-conflict state will contribute to the decline of liberal values in social development. One can always hope that the reactionary wave will subside along with the reign of immoral populist dictators who are riding it. But it is impossible to imagine the extent to which humanitarian values might collapse during a global crisis. Yet, drawing on the historical experience of emerging from the darkness of World War II, we may predict that the next phase of humanization and progress will be more far-reaching, philosophically deeper, and politically more resilient. Artur Vsevolozhskyi

Domestic or, as it is also known, family violence is a type of criminal act that is among the hardest to expose and its victims the most difficult to rehabilitate. As a rule, this form of human rights abuse is gender-based. Here is one of the many instances of such affliction that our team, unfortunately, encounters far too often. However, this story is different from many others – because it has a hopeful ending. On the outskirts of Kharkiv lives Hanna Stepanivna – a modest, hardworking woman who spent her whole life working as a cleaner. When the heavy Russian shelling began, she had to hide in the basement of a nearby school together with her family and neighbors. This experience of senseless violence appeared to her as yet another manifestation of endless, reasonless evil that a helpless person cannot escape. Hanna Stepanivna is a sincere and humble woman who barely made ends meet, yet life’s hardships never broke her kind nature, and her heart was always full of love for her only daughter and granddaughter. Hanna Stepanivna had no idea what gender-based violence meant, even though she faced it almost daily. Her daughter Oksana had been living for years with an abusive husband who humiliated her, controlled her every step, took out his anger on her, and did not hesitate to raise his hand. But each time, the daughter believed that maybe next time it would pass – she just had to endure a little more. Hanna Stepanivna also endured, watching her daughter lose herself. She saw the fear in her daughter’s eyes but didn’t know how to help. When Oksana came home with bruises and at the same time tried to justify her husband, the mother’s heart broke with pain. One day, some women she knew advised Hanna Stepanivna to attend the activities of the “60+ACTIVE” project, organized by the NGO “CNGD Volonter-68.” These were meetings for women of her age where unfamiliar topics were discussed – women’s rights, gender-based violence, and ways to counter this evil. With each meeting, she listened more attentively. After a few months, Hanna Stepanivna found the courage to speak about her daughter who endured abuse, about her granddaughter who was growing up in an atmosphere of fear, and about her own helplessness. For the first time, she realized that silence is also part of the problem. During these meetings, she learned that violence is not normal, that there are organizations that can help, that her daughter has the right to a safe life. Armed with new knowledge, she began to talk to Oksana. At first, her daughter didn’t want to listen. She was used to suffering, convinced there was no way out. But Hanna Stepanivna did not give up, explaining that love is not fear, that bruises are not "signs of passion" but evidence of violence. Slowly but surely, her mother’s words took root in Oksana’s consciousness, and eventually, the woman came to the realization that she was not a prisoner and that her fate was not a life sentence. Oksana filed for divorce, received legal support, found a job, and rented a small apartment. Together with her daughter, they began a new life – free of abuse and pain. And peace finally settled in Hanna Stepanivna’s heart, because on her beloved daughter’s face she no longer reads sorrow or fear. Artur Vsevolozhskyi

The Law of Ukraine "On Prevention and Combating Domestic Violence" provides protection for victims of economic, physical, and psychological abuse. Victims have the right to seek help from law enforcement agencies, which are obligated to ensure their safety and provide support. But what happens when victims of economic, physical, and psychological abuse have neither the economic, physical, nor psychological means to reach out to law enforcement? Here is a distressing case our Humanitarian Aid Center encountered. Judge for yourself—what prevails here: law or betrayal? Oleksii Petrovych is an elderly man. His life passed in hard work and care for his only son. He believed he had earned peace and respect within his family circle—or so it seemed to him. However, even before the war, life had not been easy, and the war only sent it further downhill. For several years, the man had been unwell and needed care, with his son being his only support. Oleksii Petrovych believed that a loved one would never abandon him. But as the front line approached, the son packed his things and vanished into thin air, leaving his poor father in a semi-ruined house. Occasionally, neighbors brought him food, but he was unlikely to last long like that. When the evacuation team of NGO “CNGD ‘Volunteer-68’” arrived in the village, they found him hungry and exhausted. After evacuation, Oleksii Petrovych was housed in our shelter “Bez Mezh” (“Without Limits”). There, he received the necessary care, medical assistance, and—most importantly—human warmth. He gradually adapted to a new life, noticeably recovered, and began making plans for the future. We found him a decent shelter in Europe where he could feel comfortable. However, during the paperwork process, it turned out that Oleksii Petrovych was listed in the Debtors' Register. This was a real shock for him—he had never taken any loans. The investigation revealed that his son, taking advantage of his father's helplessness, had taken out a large loan in his name and disappeared. Betrayed, the father was left not only abandoned but also burdened with debts he had no way of repaying. Due to financial restrictions, going abroad became impossible. At that point, we had no choice but to stand by him. Our organization began looking for other solutions. Eventually, we managed to find him a good geriatric facility in Ukraine, where he received all the necessary care, safety, and support. Meanwhile, we handed the case over to a legal organization that took on the case of fraud committed by the son. This brought hope for justice and the restoration of Oleksii Petrovych's good name. Today, our beneficiary is safe in a facility that guarantees him respectful and compassionate treatment. Artur Vsevolozhskyi

To comprehend the significance of volunteering as an embodiment of human rights activity in the history of European civilization is valuable not only for those currently engaged in this work but also for those seeking to better understand what lies at the foundation of European civilization itself.   From the moment the Christian doctrine proclaimed that the suffering of the weak and frail was worthy of attention, this thesis long remained a propagandistic manifesto and a tool of political manipulation. It promised the weak compensation in the afterlife while calling on them to accept their misfortunes in this life — thereby paralyzing, in most aspects, any individual resistance or social movement. Thus Christianity rejected Aristotle’s definition of the human as a political animal — a foundational element of the Hellenistic worldview — insisting instead that the human being is a creature of God and, as such, dependent on the politics of His earthly representatives.   However, Western Christianity, through the separation of ecclesiastical and secular powers, enabled the formation of proto-civic institutions independent of both spheres of authority and allowed the spread of unorthodox views. A clear example of this is the Renaissance and the concurrent Reformation movement.   It was during this time that the idea emerged of the right to interpret reality intellectually, free from dogma. And from the dissemination of such an explosive idea, it was only a small step to the way of assessing facts still inherent to Europe today — commonly known as critical thinking.  The conflict between asserting and protecting rights on the one hand, and rejecting innovations that might lead to the unknown on the other, grows sharper with each turn of European history. And volunteering stands in the front lines of this conflict. Which gives rise to numerous questions, not easily answered in any definitive or simplistic way.   For instance, is volunteering pure charity, or is it conditioned by additional and external circumstances, such as political ones? In other words, does a volunteer’s empathy extend unconditionally to everyone, or only to select groups of beneficiaries?   Is volunteering identical to social activism, and if not, how do they differ? Does volunteering influence the transformation of stable social institutions, and if so, in what way?   Finally, how did modern European philosophical thought reflect on free will and individual responsibility — without which the evolution of social relations, and particularly their manifestation in the form of volunteering, would be impossible?   These questions — and the attempts to answer them — we intend to explore in a series of publications. European philosophers, sociologists, and legal theorists from various epochs will share their reflections on the subject. This, we hope, will shed light on the path European humanitarian thought has taken over the past nearly five centuries. Artur Vsevolozhskyi

Eternal War Evidently, it is no coincidence that the concept of "volunteer" became widespread with the first systematic attempts of European philosophical thought to comprehend the problems of social relations in the New Age. In this vein, Thomas Hobbes ' concept of the "natural state of man" becomes a kind of foundation for the views of non-clerical intellectuals of that era on social relations. Hobbes understood the natural state of people as the ability of some to hinder others in achieving their goals: a person sets a certain goal and strives to achieve it, which leads to a natural clash with the environment. In such a composition, there is obviously no place for altruism. However, there is a place for a community based on shared interests and an agreement on general rules that put the natural war between people within certain limits. On the one hand, this limits human freedom, and on the other hand, it increases their chances of survival, which is guarded by the famous Hobbesian "Leviathan" - the state. Hobbes' treatise on the organization of human society is actually the first sociological manifesto that focused on the material, determined nature of man. In this model, a volunteer is someone who, at their own discretion, chooses a sovereign, selling their freedom to them for guaranteed security. What exactly was the radicalism of "Leviathan"? Man is a predatory animal. Morality is not a given, but a product of fear and interest. The state is not a divine institution, but an artificial mechanism for controlling natural aggression. Will is a movement of the body, not a psychic (spiritual) act. Freedom is the physical absence of obstacles, not an ethical choice. His concept of "the sovereign as God on earth" was perceived as a direct attack on the church, as it removed transcendence from the social contract. The British Parliament even considered banning "Leviathan," claiming that it "corrupts morals" and opens the way to tyranny through excessive fear of freedom. And his "liberal" contemporaries were saddened by Hobbes's thesis that the people do not think, but fear. Let us recall that a few years before the publication of the treatise, British volunteers/revolutionaries beheaded their own sovereign by decision of Parliament. That is, on legal grounds. By doing so, by consensus of historians, they paved the way into the modern era, the so-called European "New Age." The Leviathan-state is not a bearer of truth, but a mechanism of stabilization. It is not "right" because it is true – it is "right" because it stops the war of interpretations. The sovereign is an arbiter, not a prophet. A contractual fiction to whom we transfer the right to interpretation, control, and use of force, because the alternative to this fiction is "the war of all against all." However, if the terms of the social contract are not observed, the Leviathan risks sinking into the ocean depths so that it can no longer resurface. But not because of some popular uprising – of course not – but solely due to the destruction of its "organic" structures, as a result of which lawless nature will again prevail. That is, war and chaos. Then volunteers will be forced to voluntarily pledge allegiance to another terrifying monster. Eternal Compromise Directly perpendicular to Hobbes, his Dutch contemporary Benedictus Spinoza  answers these questions. Spinoza believed that man does not "fear and seek security," but strives to preserve vital force, the so-called "conatus." If for Hobbes the source of unification is a contract based on fear, then for Spinoza the basis for unification is common benefit. If the former believes that the state is an artificial security construct, the latter understands it as a natural continuation of collective power. For the former, law is external coercion; for the latter, it is a form of realization of the subject's inner strength. According to Hobbes, a change of power is catastrophic in its consequences and illegitimate. For Spinoza, it is legitimate if the power contradicts reason or suppresses the vital force of the people. In Spinoza, compromise is not a forced decision due to fear, but a dynamic equilibrium of forces that changes depending on affects (states of body and mind). Thus, society is not an order established once and for all, but a fluid form of collective survival that relies on the ability to think together. This is partly due to the cultural and political atmosphere of the rich and tolerant Netherlands, of which he has been a citizen almost all his life. At the same time, he witnessed the permanent wars that the republic had to wage to fight off the encroachments of neighbouring monarchies. And which eventually destroyed the republican system. So Spinoza considers compromise not as a concluded act, but as a plural substance that is subordinate to no one, and power that is born from the positive force of the community. What is substance  in his understanding? "By substance, I understand that which exists in itself and is conceived through itself," says Spinoza. It can only be God/Nature, which has no external cause, is not created, and is not limited. Everything we can observe – bodies, events, ideas, affects – are modifications of this substance, i.e., ways of its manifestation. What then is the driving force of such a state of affairs, if fear has no place here? It is conatus  – vital force. "Each thing, insofar as it is in itself, endeavors to persevere in its being." Conatus is not biological survival, but an essential effort to be oneself, vital inertia and a strategy of duration, but unconscious, unwillful, and aimless – automatic like breathing. So, how is this to be understood? Substance is that which exists without dependence. Conatus is how this substance is realized in each mode-manifestation. Each mode (stone, human, idea) is not a part of the substance, but is its specific form of self-expression. Conatus is not an act of will, but a mode of existence. A thing does not choose to "desire" to exist – it already desires, because it exists. This applies to everything: a stone, a person, an idea, a state. A stone that flies "desires" to fly, not because it intends to, but because it manifests conatus as its dynamic essence. In humans, this effort to be oneself manifests as affects, desires, reason, will – all these are merely manifestations of conatus, its differentiations. Conatus is not egoism, but the ethics of the real. A person who strives to preserve themselves should not harm others, because it is irrational. Thus, conatus is equivalent to rationality, common life, and ultimately freedom. Spinoza's ethics arise from conatus, because understanding one's nature leads to coexistence, not to war. Substance in Spinoza is not a "thing," but a process that thinks and acts within itself. And conatus is the rhythm by which every being tries to be itself, being nothing else but the substance in one of its modifications. From such a view of reality, altruism as a social ideology becomes not only possible, but also the only rational one. The point is not in morality, not in religious precepts, but in the mechanisms of the universe and harmonious coexistence with them. It is noteworthy that during his short life, Baruch Spinoza gained a dangerous reputation as a heretic and freethinker. His own community in Amsterdam ostracized him and eventually excommunicated him, forbidding him to use his own Jewish name "Baruch" (blessed). Spinoza's main works were published posthumously in Dutch and without the author's name, but even they were banned a few years later. Next time, we will take a step of more than 150 years and get acquainted with the thoughts of the sages of that time regarding volunteering and the importance of social activism in society. Artur Vsevolozhskyi

Since the Early Modern period, European non-secular thought has gradually debunked the metaphysical idea of the human as an exceptional being. While Aristotle saw humans as "political animals," by the 18th century, humans began to be understood as animals among others—yet with the potential to calculate their actions in advance in order to reshape their environment and improve the conditions of their species' existence.   At the same time, the first fundamental disagreement arose among progressive natural scientists. On the one hand, we owe to Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet Lamarck the idea of purposeful evolution, and on the other, to Charles Robert Darwin , the concept of blind selection in species evolution. Both thinkers saw natural history as a continuous process of becoming, where the social was no longer separate from the natural. For both, the evolution of organisms was a platform for progress and improvement.   However, Lamarck believed that adaptively advantageous traits are inherited in a directed manner under environmental pressure, allowing subsequent generations to cumulatively increase their survival potential, while unnecessary traits atrophy. Darwin, by contrast, argued that evolution occurs randomly through natural and sexual selection—weak individuals do not survive, while strong ones leave offspring, thus fixing beneficial changes in the organism. This logic instantly opened the door to speculation about improving the human race. Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton —a typical Victorian amateur scientist active in nearly all branches of natural science from meteorology to psychology, acoustics to statistics—interpreted evolution, after reading his relative’s work, as a practical tool for selecting individuals based on traits useful for serving the empire, productive labor, and so on. As the founder of the science of "eugenics," Galton was particularly concerned with cultivating geniuses—like himself—through the pairing of individuals with strong hereditary talents in order to produce gifted sons. Of course, nothing of the sort was said about daughters, since the weaker sex, by definition, was biologically incapable of spiritual greatness. Historians of Western science consider Galton a precursor and, in part, a father of racial theory, misogynistic studies, psychometrics, technocratic utilitarianism, and totalitarian control. From that moment, biology ceased to be merely a science and began to be considered—mainly by sociopaths—as a technology for managing the future. Since then, the attribution of morality or empathy to the domain of ethics has been questioned, and the idea that these are merely biologically determined reactions has gained credibility. In this section, we will witness the development of a dilemma-based justification of the nature of social activism within the framework of biological determinism. We will try to understand how much is free choice here, and how much is dictated by the survival model. Lorenz Humans possess empathy toward those close to them, and hostility or distrust toward those perceived as distant. In times of danger, they cling to their own and, to put it mildly, repel those they do not consider their own (although today this distinction is not always obvious).   Nobel laureate, zoologist, and ethologist Konrad Zacharias Lorenz viewed aggression as a multifactorial instinctive behavior inherent to all animals, including humans, and considered it evolutionarily necessary for species survival, with adaptation to the environment seen as a kind of biological morality. He believed that aggression accumulates and requires release, akin to hydraulic pressure. Accordingly, he considered the only safeguard against excessive aggression in human communities to be ethnic culture—exclusive traditions that channel the surplus energy into survival-promoting behavioral models such as territorial defense, charity aimed at group members, creativity, etc. Conversely, if cultural templates lose relevance, destructive energy is unleashed. Lorenz viewed traditional culture, with its stable behavioral repertoire and ritual limitations, as an ecosystem that harmonizes human animal instincts. Therefore, he considered any social innovations, technological progress, immigration, and similar mass structural changes to the existential landscape as at least disruptive. According to Lorenz's proper scenario, if aggression is released in response to culturally acceptable external challenges, it does not take destructive forms but instead can serve as a stimulus—for example, for voluntary activities benefiting the community, thus preserving societal balance.   However, if the volitional response is directed at external challenges originating from foreign cultural backgrounds, what happens, according to Lorenz, is a "blank discharge of aggression," which ultimately leads to chaos and escalating violence.   This understanding of social mechanics is largely explained by Lorenz's background and worldview, typical of many from his class—his father was a successful Viennese doctor; his era—he was born at the start of the 20th century and died near its end; and his national allegiance—he was an Austrian citizen and more than a loyal subject of the Third Reich.   By his own admission, as a "German-thinking natural scientist," he was a convinced National Socialist even before formally joining the party and working in Nazi institutions. Lorenz participated in racial selection programs and promoted ideas about the dangers of mixing "biologically incompatible" human populations. However, in later years, when he was affectionately nicknamed "goose daddy" for his public love of waterfowl—the very animals on which he built his theory—this highly media-visible scholar repeatedly insisted that his Nazi past had been youthful folly, although forty is not all that youthful.  Sapolsky Neuroendocrinologist and primatologist Robert Morris Sapolsky is an extreme liberal and an absolute determinist, devoid of even a drop of Teutonic sentimentality. Lorenz would have likely commented on such a worldview in terms of racial incompatibility. Compared to the instinct-driven will of Lorenz's human, Sapolsky argues: the human is a biochemical event. Free will does not exist in any form and cannot manifest at any level of being. Everything is determined by genetics, hormones, embryonic development, traumatic experience, and social context. Every thought we have, every emotion we feel, and all our desires are the result of a causal chain we cannot control. The combination of extreme liberalism—which presumes at least some freedom of will—and extreme determinism—which denies even the possibility of such will—might seem paradoxical. But Sapolsky is not the least bit troubled by it.   There is no free will, but in its place exists conscious responsibility, even unconscious responsibility—for the inevitable consequences of automatic actions performed by a biological organism. If Sapolsky weren’t a known atheist, one could say his doctrine echoes something deeply Old Testament-like. His activism is particularly notable in opposition to the modern legal system, which punishes and condemns for actions not committed consciously. While modern legal practice does recognize the concept of a "crime of passion," which mitigates guilt, Sapolsky considers this a deceitful half-measure. For him, all human behavior is one continuous state of affect. Thus, the legal system becomes a mechanism of unjustified vengeance by a frustrated public that still believes, especially in cases of gruesome crimes, that the criminal made a free choice. Sapolsky has frequently testified in court as an expert in cases involving particularly brutal murders, convincingly arguing that the defendant simply had no chance not to commit the crime. Their genetics, childhood trauma, hormonal background, brain disorders, and so on directly led them to specific actions, and free will had no part in it. So what should we do in a situation where we cannot find the guilty party or even understand the reasons for our actions? Sapolsky’s answer is: inclusivity, empathy, social activism, individual and collective responsibility. Abandon the false premise that we consciously choose one path over another. Reject hypocritical condemnation, torture, and execution of those who have committed heinous crimes. We must neutralize the recurrence of their actions, which requires isolation and rehabilitation through neuroethical prevention. Build a social environment that minimizes stress and aggression—not punishing, but trying to adapt individuals as much as possible.  Implement a secular, humanistic ethic that does not recognize sin but does recognize pain.  Revise the humanist matrix, significantly eroded by idealistic overlays, through the lens of science. Thus, we have two polar views by biologists on social altruism:   One position holds that the basis of social activism is selfish, instinctive aggression. By making a voluntary decision to sacrifice something for the good of the community, the individual essentially affirms their right to be considered an integral member, thereby overcoming the sense of helplessness in the face of threats looming over individual group members. Thus, by helping others, our abstract volunteer objectively increases their own chances of survival.   The second position argues that altruistic action is caused by the "volunteer's" state of consciousness and is by no means a free choice—such a charitable disposition results from a sum of factors ranging from upbringing and growth conditions to hereditary illnesses and atmospheric pressure at the moment.   In this light, benevolence seems almost cartoonish—as if angels of virtue are bouncing on clouds of biochemical determinism, their wings sprouting from hormonal balances.   Accordingly, starting from the animal responses of Homo sapiens, next time we will look at volunteering as an action of this species from a philosophical perspective. Artur Vsevolozhskyi