James5

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or to email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

Peter Singer thinks that people should be more open about their giving and that, contra to the Biblical message, we shouldn’t care what motivates them. He says that this will create peer pressure and encourage others to give more, citing sites such as Bolder Giving and 10 over 100 as good examples of encouraging charity.

Jesus said we should give alms in private rather than when others are watching. That fits with the commonsense idea that if people do good in public they may be motivated by a desire to gain a reputation for generosity. Perhaps when no one is looking they are not generous at all. …

From an ethical perspective, however, should we care so much about the purity of the motive? Surely what matters is that something was given to a good cause. We may well look askance at a lavish new concert hall, but not because the donor’s name is chiselled into the marble facade. Rather, we should question whether, in a world in which 25,000 impoverished children die unnecessarily every day, another concert hall is what the world needs.

I’m not convinced by this utilitarian ethic of giving.

First, motive is important to giving. If we are motivated by public acclaim instead of the benefits of the recipient the gift is compromised not only from a moral perspective but also from a utilitarian one. When the recipient’s needs are displaced by selfish ambition it is unlikely that the gift will be that best suited to them. As an example, the RED campaign has been criticised for only contributing to ‘focus group friendly’ causes and ignoring the real need because its primary motive, wasn’t helping others, rather it was marketing.

Second, I wonder whether the ‘peer pressure effect’ really requires the giver of the gift to publicise their generosity or whether the recipient can spur on donations by publicising that they are getting money. Charities often promote how close they are to their goal, how the last donor gave $25 or how they’ve got a “dollar for dollar” campaign going to encourage people to give. Why do we need individuals to do this when the charities can do a better job of it themselves?

Finally, Singer’s critique of Jesus’ words seems to have missed the wider externality of ‘public giving’ (as it seems a much utilitarian ethics does). While it may result in more money for charities, a point that is far from proven, it will also effect the person giving the donation and the community in which the donation is given.

The person who receives public acclaim for their charitable work is at risk of becoming proud. And while some people would encourage pride, I think it is generally recognisable that it is easier to live among humble people then proud ones.

Beyond the individual, a society in which giving is pressured by “keeping up with the Joneses” is not a place that many of us would like to live in. I think Jesus would have seen the effect that public and ostentatious displays of giving has on society - privileging those that can afford to give at the expense of others and puffing them up with pride - and thus articulated his famous command.

So I’m not convinced by Singer’s article. While I’m sure the creators of sites like Bolder Giving and 10 over 100 have the right motive, to see people give more, I’d question whether the ends justify the means.

See more discussion at Economist’s View.

Popularity: 5% [?]