Question:
What are your financial obligations, if any, to our fellow human being?
Background:
Humankind’s religious traditions (and a good number of secular ones, too) are replete with archetypes of generosity. The Islamic tradition boasts countless hyperbolic tales of munificence: of `Umar and Abu Bakr donating half and all of their possessions, respectively, to the community; of `Ali and Fatima sharing their very last dates with passersby on Ramadan evenings. The same can be said of any of the world’s traditions, and in fact today’s two most generous philanthropists hold to no “tradition” at all. It would seem in examining the classical literature that these types of activities are the pinnacle of a morality-informed model of wealth — that to the extent that one has a privileged position of wealth, and to the extent that there are others in dire economic need, the most ethically superior act is to give away the difference.
But it doesn’t take more than a moment’s thought to recognize that this ascetic lifestyle is not our society’s norm. Perhaps for good reason: our jobs (if we have them) may be on thin ice, saving is at a premium in society [for those who can (retirement, health expenditures, children's collegiate expenses)], and our greater-than-bare-subsistence lifestyle is far from easily dispensed with. To standardize the following discourse, let us presume (if it is not the case) that we have at least some disposable income, however small.
When we spend on ourselves, on non-essentials are we negating the notion that “All lives — no matter where they are being led — have equal value”? (from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). If we are rejecting this notion, on what basis do we do so? If we aren’t, is there a moral justification for this spending? Can we say it is “wrong” for a multimillionaire to purchase a private jet for recreation while his (figurative) neighbors have to make difficult decisions between food and health care? On the other hand, is it mere reductionism think in terms of “spending on non-essentials for ourselves while other go without”? I understand that the category of “non-essentials” is not self-explanatory, i.e. what would count as an indulgent expenditure (the newest iPhone, an iPhone in general, a phone in general) if another individual isn’t able to place food on the table or afford medication? Surely built into these questions as well are our opinions as to why people are poor, and also why people are rich (they earned it, they benefited from their social situation, pure luck, some combination thereof).
Ethicist Peter Singer lays out a compelling argument that “doing our share” isn’t good enough; also present is the story of Zell Kravinsky who donated the near totality of his 45 million dollar fortune to live a humble lifestyle with his life and family. Also, upon hearing that thousands of people die each year awaiting kidney transplants, and that the risk of death associated with the effects of donations are 1 in 4,000, he made a non-directed kidney donation to a stranger. (accessible here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/magazine/17charity.t.html?pagewanted=all, the original article can be found here: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972—-.htm). Thus, the stories of individuals giving away nearly everything are not only the legendary narratives in scriptures and hagiographies.
At the same time, I heard a philosopher state that each year, with millions of Americans barely making ends meet, families across country take summer vacations to Disney World and elsewhere for the enjoyment of their children, and it’s a good thing as a society that we do. I always wish I had heard his explanation, perhaps one of you can provide it.
Dynasty 1 | Diminishing Returns and the Extent of Obligation
I think it’s interesting to note the way in which billionaires spend their money. It seems to me that billionaires eventually “run out” of things to buy. As their wealth increases, they typically buy houses, cars, and all those wonderful material possessions. There is a point of diminishing returns however where more money and more “stuff” ceases to increase happiness, at which point so many billionaires start to donate their money. This was Jim Leitner’s reasoning; he’s a hedge fund guy, and one day he decided that he ran out of things to spend his money on. He was approached by members of Fordham about putting his money to good use, and the Leitner center was born. Now he throws his fortune at human rights projects around the world. This isn’t to downplay the wonderful works of philanthropists, I don’t think these acts are based in anything greedy or selfish. On the contrary, I think that deriving happiness from the happiness of others through genuine empathy is the key to altruism.
I do wonder however why it takes us so long to get to that point of diminishing returns. I’d be interested to see a study on how much money people give away per different levels of wealth and income. I would imagine a sort of third degree function where people at low income levels don’t give any charity (because they can’t afford it), as wealth increases, so too does charitable giving. But at some point, money begins to corrupt and we start spending money on ourselves in large amounts, while still giving some charity, but perhaps at smaller percentages? But it goes back up when we run out of things to buy. But that wasn’t the question you asked, right?
I remember having a similar discussion on an earlier thread regarding our moral obligations to help others in need. We concluded that legally, you have no such obligation (except in Vermont, remember?) but I’m not sure if we came to a conclusion regarding moral obligation. Supposing that whatever creed we happen to be following is the “moral way”, I think it’s interesting to note that Islamic finance does not prohibit the rich and the poor from existing. People are allowed to be rich, and people are allowed to let poor people exist. On the other hand, it still holds true in Islam that it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through a needle’s eye. I think this means that people who have the means to help others are morally obligated to do so, the question however is the extent. Certainly we shouldn’t force everyone to be like Vincent Van Gogh, giving up all of our wealth and living as a beggar. Islam tells us that we are allowed to enjoy the pleasures of life which have been made permissible to us. That also begs the question of extent, how much spending on ourselves does it take to make that spending “non-permissible”? Again people are allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor; the question is just one of extent.
The answer in Christianity is quite clear: 90%. (This is “tithe”, that everyone must constantly give 10% of their income to charity.) But it’s less clear in Islam since zakat really isn’t that much, and saddaqa isn’t associated with any set percentages.
I think we can think of this in two ways. One framework could be that everyone in a society (or the global society) has a base “necessity”. This is calculated by taking all of the resources and materials (the “stuff”) in the world, dividing it evenly among everyone (accounting for special circumstances of course such as medical conditions, disabilities, etc.), and whatever that amount is, that is everyone’s “base necessity” (sort of like a poverty line, but way more than 1.08 dollars a day). If you are below this, keep all your wealth. If you are above it, you must give away wealth until you reach the “base necessity” line. All of your income above that will continue to go to charity. If everyone cooperates, the gini index will equal 1, everyone will have the same amount of “stuff”, and everyone is even. Spending on yourself after you have reached the “base necessity line” is immoral.
I don’t like this at all. It doesn’t account for the idea that people who work harder should get more. So perhaps we could adjust the “base necessity line” or the “base wealth line” as a formula to “amount worked” or “amount of utility”.
Another framework would be a spectrum. We can say the more you earn, the more obligations you have to give to others. I think this is actually the way Islam does it. This would allow us to enjoy more of our wealth according to our earnings, and it will still require us to give charity. I don’t really know where to go from there.
I should also note that I disagree with answering moral questions formulaic-ly (which is exactly what I just did). I think that moral questions must be tested and answered a prior-ly, but maybe this formula stuff could render an interesting thought experiment?
Dynasty 2 | Devotion and Charity: A Religious Perspective
Very interesting topic and one that is incredible hard to answer. In my personal opinion, donation comes from a personal connection to God and humanity. One without the other can have some satisfaction but complete contentment comes when both are present. For Abu Bakr and Umar (r), there connection was that deep. There cause was that important. I say there cause b/c although I share their same faith, I can’t say I have the same level of faith to be able to recognize the very purpose of existence that they did. One of the most interesting stories that I remember is when Umar (r) was Khalifa. It was noted he would spend all day at the work for the people and most of the night in devotion. This seems a bit unrealistic until you hear stories that Malcolm X would only sleep 4 hours a night. The reason being was the devotion they had to their purpose. We can all probably relate. All-nighters are not something we are in the habit of but at times our devotion to getting done whatever it is we need to takes over. Now imagine a devotion for a purpose that spans the entirety of your life. Would sleep, money, or anything else really stand in the way? In some respects we could all be so lucky to find such a devotion that encompasses who we are and what our purpose is.
To the topic at hand. The stories and encouragement we see the various religious traditions does give us examples of pious actions. However, underlying that is something deeper. It is a personal commitment that one must have to doing what has a profound effect on them. In that sense, pointing out the action is nice and definitely praiseworthy. But actions on their own must be rooted in some foundation. If it is in pleasure of others, then your commitment to a course of action will only happen until you see success in changing people’s lives (not always the case unfortunately as sometimes we do fall short). If your action is rooted in being praised, then your commitment will only sustain you until someone does something bigger and more deserving of praise which dwarfs your ability. However, to do something for Allah (swt) and simply to be near to him, to truly have that belief will be something that is never ending in this life. So to donate and give to those less fortunate, the underlying principle must arise from devotion and not from simply the action.
That said, in Islam (which is the only religion I feel confident enough to discuss), there is zakat. Zakat can have a devotional aspect to it as discussed above (in which case paying that amount would be considered too little). However, Zakat also has a practical aspect to it. Remember, Zakat isn’t on income but rather functions as a tax on the hoarding of wealth. Meaning, if you earn an income and spend it all consuming things (food, vacations, etc), and do not possess any savings or wealth (i.e. items such as gold, etc) then you have zero Zakat obligations. One may wonder if this is just or if this is what was meant by Allah (swt). True, self consumption one will be held accountable for but that doesn’t mean one couldn’t do it. However, this points to the function of Zakat as being a way to encourage organic growth, investment, and spending in a broader economic context. If you take today’s economic crisis and notice what we are trying to do with tax cuts and spending measures is to create economic growth by encouraging others to spend and invest. Instead perhaps a tax on that wealth would encourage people to spend. Thus Zakat, while it could be looked at as a devotional aspect is at the same time also a very practical tool devoid of devotional considerations.
Overall, I do believe that issues like this are ones where the devotional aspect is needed and to encourage outside action to cause charity is good up to a point if there is no devotional connection. Remember, the very person we condemn for buying a private jet is putting someone to work who probably needs that job. On the hand, scholars would often shun away from eating at restaurants not b/c it was sinful but rather they were afraid that there would be people who could not afford to eat at a restaurant passing by and it would hurt their feelings. Thus, we must remember there is balance in some respects. On the one hand we do need certain spending done in order to keep certain economic growth going and helping people to get jobs. At the same time, on a personal level, we must increase our own devotional connection with Allah (swt) and realize that connection through other people and actions.
I can’t say I have found a full balance or clear explanation.
Dynasty 3 | Distance as the Extent of Our Moral Obligation
In agreement with Peter Singer’s general viewpoint that we have some kind of moral obligation to donate our disposable wealth to the poor, I would like to bring to the fore the issue of whether or not the extent of our moral obligation donate money to the poor is dependent on distance. By “distance”, I mean to say whether or not we have a greater obligation toward our own family, our own community members, or our friends, than we do toward someone in a developing country on another continent. Singer does not give much (or maybe any) moral significance to the notion of distance. I would like to present a few ways to argue in favor of the moral importance of distance in determining the relative extent of our moral obligations toward helping others, and then use this view as a possible attempt to justify spending money on the enjoyment of our children beyond bare necessities.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation quote seems to imply that an attempt to justify spending for enjoyment or something beyond bare necessity on oneself or one’s children would have to rest on the notion that all human beings do not have equal value. In other words, if we were only to recognize that all human beings do have equal value, we would not spend on anything beyond the bare necessities as long as there are others we could be helping with our disposable income. However, I think that setting up in the question in terms of whether or not all human beings have equal value is not the most appropriate way to do justice to the issue of the role of distance in determining the extent of our obligations. This is because one can still justify the view that our moral obligations differ on the basis of distance while still assuming that all human beings have equal intrinsic value. In other words, I don’t have to claim that my close friend has a higher intrinsic value than someone in a developing country to justify the claim that my moral obligation to donate my disposable income is greater toward the close friend than toward the person in the developing country.
I think there are two ways to argue in favor the moral significance of distance while still maintaining that all human beings have equal value.
One argument is based on Michael Slote’s view of the central role that “empathy” and “self-other asymmetry” play in our moral judgments. According to Slote, the notion of “empathy” is built into our moral judgments, along with the notion of “self-other asymmetry.” For instance, Slote appeals to our intuition that we are allowed to sacrifice ourselves for some worthy cause, yet we would not say it is permissible to sacrifice someone else for the same cause. Or, we might think it permissible to autonomously engage in activities which harm ourselves, yet completely immoral to harm someone else in a similar fashion. According to this view, the level of empathy that one has for someone else should determine our moral obligations because we cannot think of morality without the notion of “self-other asymmetry” which is itself grounded in empathy. I don’t find this view too compelling, because it might be subject to the is-ought fallacy (just because we do think in terms of empathy or self-other asymmetry doesn’t mean we ought to) and it relies too much on reference to intuitions. Still, I think it has at least some force, and I’d like to see if anyone else has thought about the role of empathy. I know Dynasty 1’s post did mention the importance of empathy and altruism.
Another way to go about defending the moral significance of distance might be to rely on social structures of parenthood, family, and community. You might think that a society creates these structures of obligations to ensure that people who are in need are being taken care of, and that it is good to keep these structures local so that the aid or help can be sensitive to particular contexts. Along this line, one can make the argument that one has a greater obligation to spend money on one’s own children or the poor within one’s own community, than toward someone in a developing country, based on these socially defined roles. Although one can counter-argue that these social structures themselves have failed (due to the widespread persistence of poverty) and that a more “global” structure of roles and obligations would be more fitting for a world in globalization, I think the argument still has some teeth.
While I don’t find either of these 2 arguments 100% satisfactory for justifying buying private jets or spending money on lavish vacations, I do think they are good enough to argue against Singer’s extreme claim that we should treat our obligations toward someone in a developing country the same as our own children or our close friends or community members. In this sense, while the lavish vacations and private jets aren’t justified, I do think one can justify spending less of one’s disposable income for the global poor in order to spend more on a better college education for one’s child. Or, spending more of one’s disposable income to relieve poverty in Baltimore City (where I live) than in sub-Saharan Africa.
I would be glad to hear anyone else’s thoughts on the issue of the extent of our obligations as a function of distance (in terms of empathy, socially defined roles, or anything else).
Dynasty 4 | Obligation to Help
We are composites. No human being was born wealthy, they either accumulated it on their own (e.g., business) or they were given that money from someone else (e.g., inheritance). Other people have contributed to your success in some way shape or form. (Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law Professor, sums this up: http://youtu.be/htX2usfqMEs) We owe people to be treated fairly, and whether that is in the form of money or creating infrastructure or investing in the society, the rich owe that to the rest of us.
Obligation to Help. We all, as human beings in equal in worth, have a responsibility to help other human beings. Because (1) we are social beings, we need society to function, (2) society has helped us get to where we are and it is selfish to not return the fruits of someone else’s labor. (3) Selfishness is bad. However, we do not have an obligation to spend or limit our spending as a way of helping. Again, we do have to help, but not necessarily in the form of charity, donation, or money. We can help in a number of ways. Feeding people, providing them shelter, educating them, building infrastructure, using your social/political power to make a change in practices, etc. There are a number of ways to help, giving away your spare money is not necessary.
Morale and Motivation. For some, as Dynasty 1 points out, money relates to happiness. That happiness may keep one’s morale high, and certain chemicals in our brain are correlated with certain behaviors and certain chemicals are released from certain stimuli. Have a relaxing vacation at Disney or watching a really cool movie will give you a burst in inspiration or pleasure, or it will revitalize you such that you are more likely to share in your happiness. People’s work and attitude drop when they don’t have the opportunity to find enjoyment and certain things are created to facilitate enjoyment. Outlets for dealing with stress are needed, and for some it’s spending, or partaking in activities that may be costly. We should question the prices on these things and not the activity (assuming the activity is nothing unethical)
Pricing. I place blame on companies and what not who charge exorbitant amounts of money for things that are the same as the generic. But competition is what causes people to charge different prices for different things. If everything was generic and at generic prices, there is no incentive to make something cooler or taste better or awesome or cheaper or efficient because it doesn’t matter, they will be purchased regardless. Tylenol has incentive to make their drugs work better because someone is competing with them that offers a product that is more effective at fixing headaches quickly. However, there needs to be a threshold at which companies cannot ask for, aka fair pricing. iPhones are necessary for many because of its high functionality, but it did not cost that much to make and to charge that much is ridiculous solely because the hype around it will drive people to pay that amount. These types of products ensure that the rich stay rich and poor stay poor. Its a two way street. Supply and demand type of situation.
Capitalism. The point of capitalism as it is commonly understood is to maximize profits and people will do anything to maximize profits, whether it is exploiting people, or becoming more green to improve marketing because being “green” is the new thing to attract consumers. (Slavoj Zizek has a great opinion on charity that Dynasty 5 once shared with me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g) I argue that we should be more interested in the maximization of the quality of life, better health, better education opportunities, better access to the resources that we all own, etc. That should be valued in and of itself not because it will get you more customers. It is justified if richer people pay more for things so the poor can pay less because the rich already have their basic needs met (e.g, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) and the poor do not. The poor’s responsibility is the meet these needs, something the rich (it is assumed) have achieved. A system that helps everyone achieve these needs are important, and money can’t buy needs such as esteem and self-actualization. The dent rich people feel in their quality of life is so low compared the dent a poor person will feel toward meeting their basic needs (Warren Buffett on this topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=4) If you want to talk about “Islamic” finance which is more or less the Islamization of our current financial models, true “Islamic” finance, or “Humanistic” finance is the model which I just articulated. (Failures of Islamic finance: http://works.bepress.com/haider_ala_hamoudi/6/)
Salaries. We should give the most money to people who create opportunities for others. (A Dynasty member shared a great video of me of Tupac Shakur articulating this: http://bit.ly/ryJZ4D). The richest of society should be those who give the most in non material things like education, health, etc. I am advocating that teachers should be the richest, then doctors, etc. This obviously presumes who I value as important in society, but I am open to a reordering of these, but people like cashiers or hedge fund managers should be paid lowest. I am familiar with the implications, and I will assume you understand the nuances of the point I am making here.
Also I disagree with Dynasty 2’s point about devotion in God or doing something for God as being a reason to do something. In fact, I am very much opposed to that idea. We should donate or be good people because our action is good in and of itself irrespective of who says it’s good. Reminds me of the Appeal to Authority. The infinity life of “true belief and being near to God” is an arbitrary metaphysical belief that only a self selecting group buys into. With that same logic, we could argue something extreme like, it is the devotion that can justify immoral actions like killing. We should evaluate the deed by itself. Atheists donate to charity, volunteer their time and they don’t believe in a pie in the sky god. They recognize the value in the deed. The alternative question is, if God didn’t exist, would you not donate? According to that logic, no. There are better reasons for why we should donate, I hope I articulated that above, and I think Dynasty 1 posed his/her reasons as well.
In sum, to answer the question: we are not negating the idea that all are created equal when we spend on “non-essentials” because what qualifies as “non-essential”? Things serve different purposes for different people including for recreation. There is some sort of meaning that is placed on the financial transactions we partake in and fulfill some sort of need. Needs are “essential,” no? Hence, it would be reductionist to think of it in terms of “spending on non-essentials for ourselves while other go without”. We are, however negating that all are created equal when we don’t help people, and help doesn’t necessary have to be in the form of money. It is wrong to not help the neighbors who “have to make difficult decisions between food and health care” but that help does not have to be monetary, we should seek creative and/or alternatives to help.
Dynasty 1 | Alternative Considerations
In response to Dynasty 3’s interpretation of the Bill Gates Foundation’s quote, I think it’s dangerous to equate the value someone has with the amount of money we give them. Legally the value of a human life is an “inalienable” right (and in fact the only inalienable right, not even life itself is inalienable). Law makers and courts struggle with attributing a money damages award to wrongful death/homicide civil actions because it is so hard to quantify a human life with money. This means however that just because we don’t give someone as much money as we do to our kids doesn’t mean they are worth less, and I think that helps your argument.
In regards to Dynasty 3’s argument about distance. What about the efficiency argument? It is more efficient to help those closest by considering transfer/transportation costs, learning curb of societal understanding, logistics, etc. Also, people close by tend to be more open to it. If I open a charity in my neighborhood, that’s great. If I do so in Ghana, I’m met with the response “who is this white foreigner coming into my country telling me what to do?” I call this the “hearts and minds” cost. This is of course a utilitarian-esque argument.
In regards to Dynasty 4’s point about capitalism. I don’t think capitalism’s main goal is in fact to maximize profits. I think it’s to curb human nature to help and not hurt society. People will do what they want, so let’s create a system wherein people do what they want and those actions help the entire system (i.e. a market). I’m going to make an Islamic bank. This is moral and Godly, etc., but I’m doing it because I’m selfish and I love money. However, I don’t think my moral obligation of charity comes into play here. As far as Islamic finance is concerned, this is structured such that charity by institutions is correlated to the financial instability of the community.
I think that Dynasty 2’s relationship-with-God reasoning is very important. First, if you get people to do good things for any reason, we win (e.g. capitalism). Second, remember one of the names of God in Islam is “the truth” or “the reality”. Hence doing something “for” God is doing something more than a being or entity, it is doing something because it is in fact the right thing to do. It is, depending on your relationship with God as Dynasty 2 pointed out, the essence of morality, that is, doing something just because it is the right thing to do.
I would still like to pose the question: to what extent are we obligated to give? Is there a bright line test? Is it a subjective standard? Legally there is no standard. Islamically it seems subjective. In Christianity it is 10 percent but better to give more. Is there a bare minimum of how much we’re supposed to give?
In terms of Dynasty 4’s argument about the obligation to help; I think selfishness is great, it is human nature. We should help people because we are social/a part of a society and want society to succeed, I agree. But this is in fact a selfish reason. Capitalism seems amoral, but I actually think we can have a moral capitalism, i.e. one based on the good parts of human nature to suppress the bad parts of human nature (e.g. use jealousy to curb envy). Unfortunately charity seems at odds with capitalism (unless we conceptualize charity as “buying positive empathy” which I don’t like). Actually, maybe that’s the reality. Thoughts?
Dynasty 4 | Capitalism and a Defense of Distance
Dynasty 1, you ask “to what extent are we obligated to give?”
We are not obligated to give, but obligated to help as it relates to our capacity to help and whether or not an effort is made. Your obligation to help varies based on your “distance” to the person. I.e., you are obligated to help your child MORE than child X. Why does distance matter? Because the people “closest” to you are responsible for shaping who you are, they have sacrificed to some extent to help you get to where you are. This is where I disagree completely with another Dynasty member who said that he does not discriminate who to help based on their relationship to him. Which is the most absurd thing I have heard since the people who have sacrificed their time to help you achieve your status deserve your attention first. You don’t donate to a random university, you donate to your alma mater because your alma mater shaped you, and random university didn’t shape you as a person. The way you haven’t accumulated your money on your own, you haven’t become who you are on your own.
Capitalism and Libertarianism. I Disagree with Dynasty 1. We should NOT let people do what they want. No individual autonomy, more of a principled autonomy. People’s actions, as insignificant as that person may think they are, actually have a weight on society and social norms. A person who wants to pimp himself may seem innocent enough, but someone who looks up to him may be convinced to partake in that activity. We have to recognize how our actions relate to the collective norm-making process that takes place.
God v. Good. You run into the Euthyphro dilemma (which Dynasty 3 brought to my attention earlier this week). I wager that the deed should be Good in and of itself regardless your source of motivation, whether it be for God or for something else. The deed should matter, not the approval of some authority. It does make much sense for someone to do something “for God” and it being something more than for “a being or entity.” If you want to add a religion twist, I would wager then, that the deed is Good is promoted by scripture. It is not good because the scripture says it’s good.
Selfishness. Just because selfishness is an inclination, and he can divorce ourselves from what is, and do what ought to be.
Capitalism. Why do you have to work within capitalism? Why not some other system?
Dynasty 2 | On God, Humanity, and Morality
I figure since my injecting God into the discourse started one of these tangents I should finally chime in and explain my position clearly. First, I believe I needed to make myself fairly clear that it is both God and Humanity that I said need to be served. Not one without the other. By that token one could do one without the other, it just would be incomplete in my opinion. Therefore, an atheist can do objectively (or overwhelmingly subjectively) moral/just actions. I am not here to deny that and anyone in faith would probably not deny that either.
To the point on why I mentioned God and Humanity. There is a premise of why people believe we must be moral beings. If I am at a superior material/social level why should I be morally just or charitable to those “below” me. Is it because I wouldn’t have gotten where I was if it wasn’t for them? There are philosophical postulations that support this position for sure. John Rawls came up with the Veil of Ignorance to support this notion of what constitutes as moral norms. However, assuming we can objectively determine what the moral norms are, doesn’t mean there is a full scale mechanism to apply today. Even if we find that there are moral norms that say we must be grateful, there is still the flawed assumption people will recognize it. What if I just decided I had no reason to be grateful? Seems a bit callous for sure, but at the same time, a person who is not grateful would probably not recognize the interdependence of the individual and society in getting where they have gotten. Rather they will take an individualistic point of view and say “I did this” or “I accomplished this”. Perhaps this person will give some gratefulness to their professors, parents, mentors, etc. But he could easily ignore being grateful to some random blue collar worker, or a starving child in Africa. Why would he be grateful to them?
There has always been a debate in philosophy on the inherent nature of a human being. Are they inherently good or self-interested? Classic Locke v. Hobbes. If you assume that human beings are inherently good, then the gratefulness would be self-evident. If you assume, however, that human beings are inherently self-interested, then comes the notion of how to get the human being to do good. It requires finding motivating factors, but those motivating factors must move the pendulum of self-interest otherwise they won’t work. So simply saying, hey we are all interdependent, won’t work unless they truly see and believe that. This is a hard sale to say the least (per the example above). Thus the other motivating factors could simply be sheer force (democratic elections with policy implications of higher taxes, shame, or in certain cases pure revolutionary force). It could also be the desire for something intangible (donating to become known as a philanthropist, or because you are emotionally moved by someone else’s plight, etc.).
Overall, my point is this. I say working for humanity and God solely from my own focal point on how I look at faith, philosophy and how I see the world working. Working for Humanity has not been much disagreed upon right now. However, the reason I place in God is because that is my inherent motivation. It is what takes me out of my base inner-self of self-interest and moves me to my higher natural state (yes I know I am combing Locke and Hobbes, but that’s how I believe Islam views human beings). Perhaps there are other forces, philosophical, etc. that work in a manner that religion does. I don’t discount, but I will say I have seen religion as a leading major motivating factor for good (and yes, unfortunately, for evil as well). But academically speaking, when looking at what motivates people to move off their self-interest standard, religion does indeed play a role and it’s important to acknowledge.
Dynasty 5 | On Human Nature, Charity, and Wealth
As Dynasty 4 previously mentioned my interest with regards to Slavoj Zizek’s argument, this is undoubtedly a topic I’ve wanted to contribute to.
The idea that humans (and human nature) are inherent driving factors of a capitalist economy is something that I find particularly unhelpful in any larger discussion on the matters at hand here: charity, empathy, altruism etc. I have to agree with Dynasty 4 in his/her argument towards capitalism as a bedeviling system that attempts to maximize profit. And in this system we incentivize and bring about a human nature (greediness, competitiveness), not human nature itself. A particularly well articulated frustration of this monolithic sensibility of human nature was expressed in relation to Occupy Wall Street (OWS) here: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111191022862285.html
I think that human nature can be equally caring, selfless and collaborative (and wish our economy could bring these natures to bear our fruits of labor). I would agree that religion can be a system that encourages this type of humanity. Religion is not the only means to the emergence of these characteristics. Family and friends (in the 1.0 sense expressed by Zadie Smith here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/25/generation-why/?page=1) are two other ways by which these qualities are manifested.
On Distance. Jumping off from some of the points that Zizek makes, I think that the distance afforded between let’s say someone in “need” of a new pair of shoes in the United States and a child [truly] in need of shoes in sub-Saharan Africa has provided a very convenient place for our capitalist system to lodge itself and create opportunities [for profit]. I think that the distance is in many ways key here, for:
1. There remains an element of unknown, so that we as American consumers are able to imagine a very incomplete version of the truth where a young aspiring child now has shoes, and thus the world at their feet!
2. That incompleteness creates a lot of problems a la neo-imperialist; how are we permitting ourselves to profit and feel that our thirst for a moral path has been quenched in the same singular act?
This leads to pertinent questions: how are we letting communities in Durham, Baltimore, Chicago, eastern NC, Harlem, Oakland ad infinitum suffer? These are communities in our backyards. I would argue that the proximity is in fact the issue, because in our heart of hearts we know these fights: illegal farm workers in Tar heel, NC and subsistent [turned Marxist] farmers in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, are not as simple as a single purchase (or even a culmination of an entire society purchasing in this way). We prefer to feel good in that singular act rather than face the difficulties of reality.
The Veil of Ignorance doesn’t hold true in our globalized world. The “99%” at occupy wall street (which I would assert mostly reflects the 90-99% range and particularly excludes people of color, aboriginal Americans and those who would fall in the 0-25%) knows that it will go home to relative comforts (and is part of a 1% global population) My point being that we know our place in society and we act accordingly, the people at OWS have a capacity and agency to take their fight to Zuccotti Park, but they too are not fully able to understand the scope of what is needed or what exists. My favorite question to myself is how to we gainfully employ the bankers, hedge fund managers etc? And are you Mr. or Mrs. protester willing to unpack boxes and stock shelves at your local grocery store (even if you are making a living wage and its all organic food being sold there?) Those individuals know where they come from and they too have personal demands and indulgences that are part of the economy we live in today. They will go into any decision making process, no matter how equitable the process, with that in mind.
On the Relativity of Wealth and Poverty. Charity is fascinating; Zizek argues almost outright that it’s bad. He describes Soros as “building with one hand what he destroyed with the other.” The fact that he was able to accumulate wealth to such a great degree is the only way that he is able to now donate in the way he does.
This isn’t how social democracies work: Scandinavia, Canada, Germany etc. I struggle to think of individual private funding in these places that even comes near to the degree that this happens in the US [Saudi and UAE].
On the flip side, the World Bank wants to bring down the poverty line in India to 28 rupees because “you can live in a village in India on 28 rupees [and you can virtually eliminate poverty in India if this is your benchmark]. In Montreal last week there were 30,000 students in the street because tuition was being raised (from about $2,600) by 75%. It’s bizarre coming from the US knowing friends in debt tens of thousands of dollars and fighting against these kinds of raises.
Canada (as my other most familiar point of reference) provides an interesting counterpoint to American philanthropy. The country doesn’t have the kind of accumulated wealth that the US has and subsequently we don’t have universities that send their students for study abroad trips, internships etc globally or the likes of the Gates or Soros Foundation. Yet we have a system where one could argue that education is truly accessible (38% have post-secondary educations: the highest in the world), as is healthcare, there is multiparty democracy (with government provided campaign spending).
It’s far from perfect. But I think that with the excess of accumulation of wealth [and subsequent indulgence] in the US, the need for charity to fill that same gap in moral lacking has been necessitated. Whether we are talking about tithe (no matter how convenient the 10% number is), zakat, or charity, will a compulsion predicated on a systemic dictate ever fill the void of an indulgent lifestyle?
My own answer is no. Community, solidarity and constantly trying to counter a subjected “human nature” are where that filled void can come from (for the void is created increasingly by Zadie Smith’s 2.0 people that exist on the facebook profiles of nearly every person camped out at OWS). Faith and community based around faith can definitely be a vehicle for many of these ills, and one day, hopefully, we will have an economy that offers [and values] a similar vehicle.
Edited by: Abbas R
