Recently, my English class read utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer's
The Singer Solution to World Poverty. This is a fascinating read that claims that being uncharitable is equivalent to being a murderer. If you'd like to understand this concept more in depth, read the article yourself:
The Singer Solution to World Poverty
Today's question can be interpreted politically or religiously or both!
Do/should the richer have an obligation to assist the poorer? Should charity be required?
Also, feel free to leave your thoughts on the article.
It wouldn't very well be charity if it were required, would it?
ReplyDeleteIndeed. But should assistance be obligated?
ReplyDeleteAs I said during our conversation at The Coffee Pot, I think that labelling an action "charitable" is a matter of degree. It's actually just an extension of the morality spectrum.
ReplyDeleteThe spectrum of actions goes something like this, from most evil to most good:
---- atrocity
--- hate crime
-- evil
- spite
0 indifference
+ obligation
++ good
+++ charity
++++ self-sacrifice
Obviously, this is not an arbitrary list, but a general representation of the spectrum of actions. The neutral median is indifference, not doing anything. You can do something evil (like slapping a child), or you can carry it to an extreme and commit an atrocity (like genocide or torture). On the other hand, you can do something good (like feeding your family), or you can carry it further and commit an act of charity (like feeding a bunch of orphans), or carry it further still and commit self-sacrifice (like using your own food money to buy food for orphans, thereby not feeding yourself as much).
So, again, it's not cut-and-dry. It's all a question of degree
Now, a certain amount of good is usually expected of people by society. If you find someone tied up, yelling for help, the indifferent thing to do would be to leave them tied up and do nothing. But we generally consider it obligatory to untie the poor guy. This is an expectation that we go ever so slightly out of our way to do something just good enough. Is this good enough to be considered charity? I don't know.
But the school of thought that asserts that indifference is evil seeks to completely neutralise all evil that has been committed, theoretically equalising the lot of all people, eliminating the need for charity altogether. You tell me: does this seem like a reasonable goal?
"All of which raises a question: In the end, what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one —knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?"
ReplyDeleteThis is the same kind of nonsense being discussed in Washington DC right now. To be successful, in some people's minds, is to be wrong and unethical. This is dangerous thinking. America was founded by people who were looking for "better." What is wrong to strive for success. And why is every problem in other countries America's problem? I give money freely to a child in Africa through World Vision and believe it's important for us to do our part. However, if you go by this man's thinking all the sports players and Hollywood stars should live in poverty so they can feed all the children of the world. On second thought, maybe that's not a bad idea.
The second question is null and void. By the mere definition of 'charity' we are suggesting benevolence which is an 'act' of kindness. By making it mandatory, we remove the 'act' and replace it with 'duty'. Charity is no longer charitable, but instead obligatory. We are no longer performing on our own, but have transformed charity into 'service.' Couldn't you just see it posted on Craigslist under services. "Offering charitable acts"
ReplyDeleteAnd no, the richer do not have an 'obligation' to assist the poor. What they have is, instead, a big magnifying glass over their heads making it NECESSARY for them to assist. Because if they don't they're labelled 'avaricious' and 'parsimonious.' The only reason we aren't under the same speculation, is because we don't have people paying attention to our every purchase and luxurious whim. But we are just as spend-thrifty as they are. 10% of their income may go to a convertible, but 10% of OUR income goes to Olive Garden and Red Lobster.
It's not a matter of how much, but a matter of percentages.
Does it seem unfair that the rich live in humongous mansions while children are dying? Sure. But I don't think less of them as long as they're giving as certain amount to charity, which, most are. And if they aren't? Fine. They'll answer for that later. It's not for me to judge and its not for me to infringe.
As for the article, very interesting. It hinges a lot on guilt, which, I suppose, a topic like that must. As a Christian I believe that whoever God wants to live will live, and whoever he wants to die will die. No excessive amount of charity by anyone will change that.
I feel like we should tackle this issue more!
ReplyDeleteCharity is the absense of obligation. In fact, I will propose the opposite point: Charity should be made illegal. This way, any sacrifice for others will become the ultimate sacrifice for those who wish to engage in charity. Only those who serve themselves are doing something good for the world.
ReplyDeleteCan you see the ridiculous claim of an extreme now? A mediation in your life is what you need, never an absolute. When you begin to draw lines, and demand alligence, you shall only harm the system you are promoting.
By obligating charity or goodwill or service, you destory the concept, and therefore have required nothing and actually told people, "Well, since you have to do it, and the concept can't exist if mandatory, you now have to remain alive to be the most charitable person on Earth!" In effect, you have given everyone an out from actually CARING about what they do.
The motivation behind an action is often far more important than the action itself. Charity with little impact is still charity, but under the mandatory system, would you require results or effort? Intent or success? What is "successful charity"? Is it the elimination of the need of that charity?
As an economist, you actually destroy the concept of personal responsibility, profitability from your labors, and the obligations to support and help your society external of your own consumtion and needs. If you require it, or outlaw it, you remove the humanity from a human, thus destroying the motivation to even LIVE. Therefore, with the outlaw of requirement of charity or service or goodwill, the ultimate act of charity would to stop living.
Perhaps.
ReplyDeleteBut if a child is starving to death, wouldn't it be better to force everyone to chip in and save the child than to watch him die because no one is willing to chip in an buy him food?
^ Social welfare programs in a nutshell. A brilliant idea, but prone to abuse just like every other brilliant solution.
ReplyDelete