Ethics in Development

At first glance it seems strange to ask about the role of ethics in development. Development, regardless of the many forms it can take, is principally concerned with improving the lives of others. This is an inherently moral and ethical goal, what more needs to be said?

Unfortunately, this is an oversimplification that ignores the difficult decisions that everyone involved in development will eventually face. Who should we help when scarce resources prevent us from helping everyone? Do we help people in pain today if doing so offers no long-term benefit or do we ignore their suffering in the name of sustainability? There is no right answer to these questions, no meta-ethic to inform the entire field. Instead, everyone who works in development will have to find their own ethical standard and use it to answer the difficult decisions they face.

Comments

[Erin McInerney]

The ethical issues and personal obligations associated with development speak to broader, foundational justifications of the mutual compassion and goodwill that human beings exhibit (or are taught to exhibit, at least) on a daily basis. The “Golden Rule” is ingrained in the psyche of every child during his single-digit years, and the principle extends into the proper functioning of our modern-day civil society. As citizens, we are responsible for paying our dues to the state, and these monetary collections are directed towards promoting the “greater good” of society through services such as infrastructure improvements, law enforcement, national defense, and healthcare, to name a few. These services also often include financial support for those who struggle to support themselves on local, national, and international levels.
Given the low proportion of government spending directed towards international development and the dire, insatiable needs of these overlooked recipients, citizens often find themselves compelled to contribute to the development cause through individual donations and activism. In fact, thousands of organizations base their very existence on the need to amplify such sentiments of personal obligations. In our reading for this course, we heard both Singer and Unger argue that not donating to aid agencies is morally wrong. Their premise was steeped in the tenants of utilitarian philosophy, in which the consequences of our actions can be viewed as factors in the zero-sum game governing reality. By purchasing a new car, we are choosing not to donate that money to charity. By purchasing a new car, Singer argues, we are choosing not to save a child’s life. Such statements are relative and extremely volatile. Do I think that a single mother should forfeit her extra savings to a charity organization instead of her son’s college fund? Probably not. Should a father of four donate his extra earnings to charity, instead of his perpetually depleting refrigerator? Perhaps. Should Bill Gates direct his wealth towards helping those in need, instead of spending all of his money on luxury cars? Definitely. Extending Singer’s comparison, perhaps the single mother’s extra income could have saved a child’s life. Should she save the child at the expense of her son’s education?
These scenarios call into question several key dilemmas regarding our personal obligations to development. Firstly, is there a spectrum of responsibilities that can acceptably guide our action – from personal, local, national, and then international – and are these distinct levels characterized by varying degrees of “need”? Secondly, can aid donations truly be equated with development progress? Do we hold the formula for development? If the development challenge is the product of insufficient funding, then what explains the various approaches, organizations, and failed attempts?
If we truly want to contribute to development, then we must – first and foremost – educate our intentions. That is our foremost personal obligation to development. Without it, individuals will continue to fund futile development efforts, governments will continue to reap the rewards of their masked exploitations, and the opportunities for development will remain out of reach for those people who truly need it.