Ignoring Poverty and Cognitive Dissonance

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?