The
Morality of Giving
Given
the past and current state of our government, I thought this was an opportune
subject for me to garner a better understanding of the way philosophers have
contemplated throughout history concerning the distribution of goods and
generosity. Where do they stand on the moral issue of giving and why did they
come to the conclusions that we have debated for centuries? We have seen an exorbitant amount of funds
from the U.S. over the years go to other countries as well as commercial
campaigns to serve guilt to the populace in order to manipulate them into
giving. Should I feel guilty that someone starves in some corner of the world
that I've never been and don't understand the culture of the region?
It
would seem to Aristotle that every case is different and I don't get the
impression that he is a fan of demographics. There are quite a few factors to
consider when being generous and what may look like the right thing to do could
be the most detrimental. Finding the "Golden Mean" concerning
generosity is the prudent choice between wastefulness and stinginess. When a
generous man gives, he gives rationally in accordance of virtue. Person,
amount, and when to give or take will all be considered and the prudent choice
will be the way of the generous person. True generosity is the mean between
extremes and according to Aristotle only a prudent person can find the correct
means within each individual case. A person has to weigh extremes of an action
with rational thought in order to determine the mean or best action.
The
act of giving or taking has a multitude of considerations and Aristotle went on
to give examples of extremes that are still valid today. Do I give so much that
I'm left with nothing to continue virtuous acts? If I take, did I take beyond
what was necessary? Where did I get my borrowed money? These are only a couple
of the questions that were addressed and answered in Book IV and the section on
generosity in Nicomachaen Ethics. Each case reverts to the mean found upon
rational thought when considering the extremes.
Aristotle's
views are that of a person of high social standing in what were tight knit
interwoven communities of city States and I have seen his work diminished by
those referring to his ancient philosophies as not holding much weight given
contemporary society. I would consider the plausible thought that they might be
social engineers as much or more than philosophers.
Kant's
views are a bit more general than individual in my perception. Kant's view is
that good will is the only thing that can be conceived to be good without
qualification and any other features of human nature can be used for good or
ill. Kant spawned the deontological philosophical belief that moral obligation
rests solely upon duty. All moral actions are to be held to a universal law in
which one considers the outcome for all if everyone follows that same action.
To
my understanding, Kant believes that it is good and dutiful to share resources
since the ramifications are not to be contemplated. It would theoretically be
good for the whole to share resources regardless of the outcome. To give my own
example: The AIDS drug sent to Africa is stolen by warlords and is smoked like
crack cocaine by the populace. It gives the warlords power over the people
being the highly sought good that it is. In Kant's view, sending the drug would
still be the moral imperative regardless of negative consequences.
In
1971, Peter Singer wrote an article about the moral considerations of famine
relief. Singer wrote from a utilitarian
ethical perspective. Unlike Kant,
utilitarianism views that actions are only morally worthy if the consequences
of the actions are moral, and happiness should be maximized while suffering is
minimized. Singer uses this theory to
explain why it is not only ethical to share resources with those less
fortunate, but it is also a moral duty.
When
Singer wrote the article, he was speaking of relieving the suffering of those
in India at the time, but his arguments easily carry through to today. He argued that the rich nations could have
easily sent aid to relieve the suffering of refugees but refused to. He asked what the moral implication of this
was. To answer this question, he put
forth several assumptions and believed that if one agreed with his assumptions,
then one should accept his conclusion.
The
first assumption is a simple one: people
who are suffering from hunger, illness or homelessness are bad. The second assumption is that if someone has
the ability to help those who are suffering, they should morally do so, as long
as it does not cause an excess sacrifice for the giver. An example that he gives is that if you
walk by a child who is drowning in a shallow pond, you should save the child
because the only thing that you will suffer from is damp clothing. For an insignificant sacrifice, you are
preventing something that is very bad.
He states that it does not matter if the child is someone you know or a
refugee on the other side of the world, nor does it matter to you personally if
there are millions of others in the position to aid that same refugee. Just because others are in a position to help
but do not does not mean that you are allowed to opt out.
He
refutes the argument that giving aid will only cause population imbalance that
will in turn cause further suffering in the future. In his viewpoint, we cannot refuse to give
aid for current suffering for something that might happen in the future. He believes that while it is necessary to have
population control, withholding aid to those who are suffering is not the way
to accomplish it. Rather, other
resources should be devoted to population control.
He
explains that even though his arguments are sound, they upset what we consider
as societal moral norms. In today's
society (and society at the time the article was written), we believe that
giving money is a form of charity and is morally good, but it is not
required. We do not view it as wrong to
spend our money on new clothes that are unnecessary when we could be sending
that money to aid others. In his eyes,
giving aid to relieve suffering should be required and not optional and we are
obligated as a society to shift our moral viewpoint. He also states that this is a personal
obligation and that we should not simply put the onus on governments to provide
aid.
In
1974, Garrett Hardin posited a new and opposing ethical theory regarding
resource sharing called Lifeboat Ethics.
With this theory, Hardin divides the Earth into rich nations and poor
nations. Roughly, this equates to two
thirds of the nations being poor and the other one third considered rich. The rich nations are considered the lifeboats
while the poor nations are the people trying to get into the lifeboats. The question is how those in the lifeboat
should react in this situation. Should
those in the lifeboat help those swimming outside, thereby sharing resources
with the less fortunate?
The
first consideration, says Hardin, is the capacity of the lifeboat. The rich nations of the world have limited
resources, such as land and energy output.
Therefore, in the theoretical lifeboat, there is only room for a limited
number of passengers. If the lifeboat
currently carries fifty people, with the ability to hold ten more, yet there
are a hundred people vying for a spot on the craft, what should be done? The passengers could determine an ethical way
to admit ten more passengers to the boat, but should they? If resources are used to their capacity, what
happens to the passengers if something unforeseen happens, such as crop disease
or a hurricane? If that were to happen,
then everyone on the lifeboat is hurt.
So it would seem that the only solution to ensure survival of the
lifeboat passengers is to not admit anyone else onto the lifeboat. Hardin's answer to anyone feeling guilty
about their place on the boat is to get off and yield their spot to someone
else. This will eventually eliminate all
the 'guilt-ridden' people on the boat.
Hardin
then explains that population balance is a compounding factor. Those on the lifeboat are reproducing much
less frequently than those that are not on the lifeboat. For example, the US population is growing
much slower in comparison to poorer countries.
This puts further strain on those with the resources if they would
choose to hand them out to the poor. He
postulates that if the rich nations choose to pool their resources with the
poor nations, such as through a world food bank, eventually all nations will
suffer. If the poor nations can
continually take resources from the rich, then they will have no population
control and will continue to multiply unfettered. Eventually, this will become
unsustainable. In Garret's eyes, if the
rich nations try to share with the poor nations, it means that the rich nations
will suffer. This will eventually cause
suffering for the whole world population, and therefore he believe that it is
morally wrong to share resources with the poor.
While
Aristotle, Kant and Singer come to similar conclusions concerning resource
sharing, the philosophic views to reach those conclusions are quite
different. Aristotle's view is based on
a more individualistic approach, whereas both Kant and Singer believe that it
is a communal duty. While Hardin offers
compelling arguments in opposition to the others' conclusions, I feel a
discernible lack of empathy when tempering an action according to his
philosophical line of thinking.
In
my own view, I adhere more to the principles of Aristotle and the individual
weighing of each act of generosity. I
don't ascribe to group thinking and reject Kant's and Singer's views in
general. The only thing I can agree with
Kant on is that I have developed my own sense of duty, but it is not one of
communistic origin. For the lifeboat
theory, I do agree with this, but it is severely lacking in any sensible
approach to the dynamics of the situation.
It would be difficult to live in that world knowing you could be
discarded at a moment's notice because you weren't one of those born fortunate
or necessary.
Bibliography:
1. Aristotle;
translated by Terrence Irwin (1999).
Nicomachean Ethics 2nd ed.
2. Kant,
Immanual; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals
3rd ed.
3. Singer,
Peter. "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" Philosophy
and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1972), pp. 229-243
[revised edition]
4. Hardin,
Garret. "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case
Against Helping the Poor" Psychology Today, September 1974.
No comments:
Post a Comment