DevPolitics

Personal obligation, takeout, and a world in poverty

Our class discussion on development and its attending personal obligations/ethics was uncomfortable, but in a good way. (Walking home that night, I stopped in front of a new Mexican place, Dos Toros - but kept going and went to Trader Joe’s instead.) Peter Singer’s view is thought-provoking at minimum, and the “How much is ‘enough’?” question is one I’ve struggled with over the years. I come from a Christian tradition in which Jesus states, “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required,” and also tells a rich guy, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Interestingly, whenever the latter passage came up in church, the consensus seemed to be, “Oh, Jesus doesn’t really expect us to give up everything for the poor--we just have to be *willing* to do it if asked.” Some Christian ethicists such as Ron Sider [“Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger”] would disagree.) While I believe those of us with more than enough do have an ethical obligation to help those of us with less, it’s hard, if not impossible, to create blanket rules for how that plays out. For example, Melissa brings up the issue of Individual efficacy in the anecdote with Paul Farmer and Tom White. Everyone has gifts and skills that include certain circles of influence and effectiveness. If someone is good at advocacy and fundraising within high-powered/moneyed circles, and perhaps needs a higher-end car in order to have credibility and respect, it could be argued that this person is doing as much good or more than if she or he just lived simply and gave away extra wealth. There are also the questions of whether in fact the funds given would really help in the most effective way. In short, Singer’s view might be a good direction in which to head, but it’s too simplistic as a “solution” to poverty in itself.

Ethics, Obligations and Religion

Reading about Paul Farmer and Gary Haugen I was struck by the large role religion served in their calculations of personal ethics and obligations to others. The idea of a final tally informed their actions and decisions in way that is somewhat foreign to me as an atheist. While I do feel an obligation to humanity, their fervor raised the question of whether I could ever devote myself so entirely to any cause given the lack of an outside stimulus. I haven’t come up with a comprehensive answer to the question, but my initial inclination is no. Their faith seems to keep them going in situations that would cause me to seriously doubt my convictions and assumptions.

While this is disheartening, in certain cases a lack of faith may be helpful. Haugen’s trouble reconciling the opposing issues regarding sex workers in Cambodia is a prime example. Perhaps more doubt would have served him well in this case. Issues may indeed be divided between what Farmer calls “areas of moral clarity” and those areas where morality may be more opaque. There is certainly a spectrum between the two, but my inclination is to doubt even those areas of moral clarity. In a world of scarce resources, moral clarity seems in short supply.