Is it true that Lefties think charity is voting for pols who coercively redistribute others' wealth while Righties think charity is giving their own wealth and effort voluntarily? Many studies have shown it to be the case, but the following study out of Edinburgh sets that question aside to look more deeply.
I find the this study intriguing although it seems to first muddy the waters about what 'communal fairness' is while acknowledging that the word fairness means widely different things to different people, and secondly, it also seems to blur the lines between 'coercive redistribution' with 'redistribution' in order to insist that 'compassion' is the primary motivation for 'redistribution' while showing that 'coercive redistribution' is motivated primarily by malicious envy (26%), instrumental harm (also known as vengeance--21%), and self-interest (19% -and with 'evolved spite' one will even hurt one's self if it improves one's relative situation).
I am not sure this study is at all helpful except to perhaps get people questioning their motives and sharpening their definitions.
Nevertheless, it is clear that many, if not most of the people who posture as compassionate, are really just being maliciously envy, vengeful, and resentful rather than genuinely concerned with lifting up the less fortunate.
Get out your academician decoder ring and read the findings for yourself: https://psyarxiv.com/3jq4c
I think there is a splendid myriad of thinking and writing about the underlying motivations for compassion and charity.