Time to move away from ranty posts, and get more self-analytical...
A friend recently posted this. We've heard it many times before. In other parts of the world, life sucks. We have all these resources, they don't. But most people, myself included, are quick to forget this message. Why?
I sat down and had a think about the logic behind it all. Basically, if I may over-simplify the argument: We have resources, much more than we need, and others could really do with resources. So if we give some of our resources, we may be a little less happy, but we make others far better off. Fair enough. In strict utilitarian terms, this is cut and dry situation; giving our money overseas is making more people happy. So, we ought to do this. But we don't.
The problem lies in the question of how much do we give. Lets say we're really conservative, and only give 1% of our resources to those who need it. That's doable right? But the problem is that after we give our 1%, the situation is basically the same. We still have much more resources than we need, and there are plenty of others who could really do with resources. So if we are being consistent, we really need to give 1% away again. But again, the situation is unchanged. The difference between the need and our resources is such that the situation will only change when we give away so much that we live in comparative poverty - and the situation is changed only in that we no longer have the resources, but the need will still be there.
People are going to realize this. They are going to realize that if they buy into the argument and give that 1%, it's going to legitimize the argument, which means legitimizing the idea of giving away more, and will make it difficult for them to say 'no' to further giving. Now, if people foresee this, and don't like the idea of living in comparative poverty, they are going to avoid giving the first 1%, because that's the best way to avoid conflict created by not giving more. It's simple cognitive dissonance.
So there you have it. An insight into why some people (or maybe just me?) are unwilling to buy into that argument. I'm not trying to excuse it, because it's not how it should be, instead I want to propose an alternative way to frame the appeal in order to make it easier to give.
You'll notice I referred to utilitarianism as an ethical framework that justified giving away your money. It claims that something is good in that it leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. And if you agree with that, then you'll agree with the formulation above. But there are other ethical frameworks that we can utilize. Ethical pluralism is the idea that there are a number of principles that need to be considered to determine if something is good. The six principles that we get taught in medical school are 'Justice, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Truthfulness, Dignity, Autonomy'. Now, in this case, the principles of Justice and Beneficence are applicable here, and should motivate us to give something, but unlike utilitarianism, they do not require us to give until we're living in poverty.
So, when we are appealing for people to do something about poverty, we should frame the question in terms of justice and beneficence, as opposed to utilitarianism. What does this mean? Emphasizing that addressing the problem doesn't have to mean giving away all your money. Instead, it involves acting in a way that is fair and just towards those in poverty, things like fair trade, where we spend our money in a way that is just. It involves policy change that enables people to build their own economies. Part of it will involve giving to development organizations, but eliminating any financial disparity is not required.
Well, those are my thoughts. Any comments? Any other reasons why people ignore poverty? Any other potential solutions to motivate people to pay attention to poverty?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like Ethical Pluralism, I think it offers a useful form of balance in morality. Having a form of morality that focuses too much on one single point or rule can lead people to violate all the other conceivable values and do things that people with different values consider atrocities. I think, as humans, we tend to each have quite a large number of things we value, and morality should reflect those plural (and somewhat arbitrary) values.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't agree with your assessment about why people do/do-not give money. I don't think anyone decides to give no money due to a sub-conscious knowledge that if they gave some then they should give all. In general, I doubt giving patterns have much to do with people's moral views either - most people probably recognize it as moral to give, and equally most people like to spend money on themselves. It is probably far more a function of social pressure - how much people are badgered and how much they see others around them giving.
I would definitely see those as things as factors, but it's important to consider the mechanism of how such things affect people's giving. People may seem to act like sheep, but the reasons why they act like sheep are important. I'd argue you've got similar mechanisms; people are avoiding the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Of course, if you're not a fan of cognitive dissonance then this is all going to sound like hocus pocus to you :)
ReplyDeleteSo I'd argue that social pressure works because it makes it difficult to ignore the perceived moral obligation to deal with the issue, and so people give enough to absolve themselves of guilt, but they don't commit themselves fully, if they're fully committed it might cost them a lot. If they're prepared to give $1 a day to their kid in Africa today, how come they aren't prepared to sponsor their friend to go to Africa, attend meetings, give money to support them? The simplest way to do this is to have a token charity to give to, and ignore everything else. 'I give money to X, so I'm dealing with poverty, so I don't need to think about the bigger issues'. There is of course the other scenario where social pressure might tip someone to actually become an advocate for combating poverty, but I suspect this is infrequent, as I have found that when you push people, people tend to just push back. The more you try and convince someone to give money to charity, the more they'll look for excuses not to.
So imho social pressure makes the inner game slightly more complicated, it does result in more revenue for charities, but isn't going to make people more proactive to fight poverty.
To be sure, I don't have an expert grasp of cognitive dissonance, but yeah I'm intuitively reluctant to agree it really has the explanatory reach you seem to suggest in some of your posts. And when you start suggesting that people in general hold a particular complex set of beliefs (that you see dissonance in) my skepticism asserts itself along the lines of "I doubt many people really do hold that set of beliefs, there's surely a simpler explanation for that behaviour".
ReplyDeleteI think you're over-analyzing social pressure when you suggest "social pressure works because it makes it difficult to ignore the perceived moral obligation to deal with the issue". I meant that people just copy other people, they just do it. Copying others, and fitting in are both pretty basic instincts. So if I look around and find most other people giving $1 a day to charity, I will be strongly inclined to do so as well - not out of any particular moral beliefs, not out of any particularly good knowledge of the situation of those receiving the money, but just because everybody else is. I agree that when you try and pressure any one person to deviate from that norm of giving and do substantially more, they resist - but I would argue that is social copying/pressure at work again: They don't want to be different from everyone else... if everyone else was doing more they would take far less convincing to do more.
Of course, we can ask "why has society settled on $1 a day as a good amount and not $20 a day?" And the answer presumably is that it strikes a reasonable balance between people's low value they put on helping others who are far away and the high value they put on benefiting themselves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBleh, wanted to combine those last two into one comment, I forgot blogspot makes thing look ugly :P
ReplyDeleteComments:
Ha ha, well, when I'm in a psychoanalysing mood I'm bound to overstate the effects of the mind :)
Clearly there has to be more to life than conformity, as a theory solely relying on conformity would predict everyone converging together in their ideas. Even then you still need to explain why the average of group starts out as where it did. Which is why we need your ideas about the value people place on giving vs. being selfish, or my ideas about dissonance (or both).
But just clarifying, it doesn't have to be sub-conscious, nor does it need to be as complicated as I posited it. It could merely be a simple 'if I help this hobo, he'll expect me to help him when I walk past tomorrow, (and so will his friends)' sort of thing.
What a cool friend to write about such a fascinating issue!
ReplyDeleteHehe. Just discovered the new blog! Not sure why I didn't know you'd moved back to blogspot!
It's a tough one, isn't it. Sometimes I think its the over-saturation thing - we tune out to it, because we're always hearing of natural disasters or people dying from poverty-related illnesses. I also think people's ethics play into it a bit: a little like my mum expecting my rich uncle to give his money away - why should he, when he's not a Christian and thus isn't motivated by those values. (Though that is perhaps assuming that people who aren't christian can't be caring or unselfish or driven to look after their world...)
but I suppose the hardest part is when we look within ourselves and realise that while we are quite upset about poverty, we still do relatively little about it.... Sort of like yesterday - I saw a lady whose car had stalled, and a few cars drove past, and I thought "how rude! i can't believe no one is stopping to help!", and I felt quite strongly about that, but then I just walked past and didn't offer to help, because I assumed I couldn't help. Human beens are funny.
:)