I am feeling quite angry at humans. That's right, I am mad at you. Ever since I was exposed to one of the most stupidest analogies by Peter Singer*, I have noted how charity DOES not start at home. It starts elsewhere. Singer's analogy questions whether one would save a drowning baby if there was no one else present. This analogy was used to compare the way society gives charity only to the problems they can see, and how affluent societies have a moral obligation of some degree to help less fortunate societies.
The 'benefits' to be gained from saving the baby is a saved life and moral satisfaction. The 'disadvantages' from leaving the baby would be that the baby lose its life, and you'd be haunted by the guilt of not saving a life when you had the capacity to do so. Obviously the philosophical nature of such an analogy ignores any other factor, such as how the baby came to be drowning.
Yet, I am sure most people would say they would save the baby. But why? Why should the baby be saved? The child has no relation to you, you have no obligations to save it, and if no one else is around, who would know if you let the baby die?
Is it a moral obligation to save it? If yes, then do you also feel morally obliged to help the homeless people in the city? Or do you think that they will be saved by someone else so it is not of your responsibility to save them? Or is it because they are generally older, so you feel they should be capable of saving themselves? Or do you have the mindset that they'll just waste their money on cigarettes, alcohol, or that they should get a job?
For those that answered yes to saving the baby and the homeless, how far does our charity extend? Is giving money and donating goods enough? Should more be done, and what should be done? And more importantly, does this charity remain uniform for all those you want to help, regardless of where they are?
Then that leads me to the next question; if you saved the drowning baby, would it be due to the fact that it's a baby, or because you were the only person there?
If people 'saved' or 'helped' people based on their ages, then where does this discrimination end? At what age does a person have to reach before they should be capable of 'saving' themselves? If we were to use age to base our reasoning as to whether we help people or not, then should we also consider the proximity of the problem?
The amount of children dying in developing countries such as Africa are constantly advertised by charities, yet what about the adults that are dying? But more importantly, what about the poverty in our own country? Have we solved that yet? Why should we be giving money to people who are in distant countries when we don't even give charity to people in our own countries? Is it up to individuals, communities, the government or the whole country to abolish poverty in our country? How is it that people were willing to donate so much to the Bush Fire Appeal, yet remain indifferent to donating time and money to other disadvantaged groups within the SAME country? How much devastation must people encounter before others are shocked into sympathy to help them? Or have we all just become a complacent society where we believe someone else will shoulder the burden?
Here's a story for you to consider: a lady refused to give money to help out a neighbour because he seemed dodgy. At the same time she would be willing to give $50 to a complete stranger in another country. This neighbour promised to pay the money back. Whether he would fulfil that promise isn't the issue. The issue is that the problem was right in front of the lady, yet nothing was done to solve it (regardless of his honesty).
The drowning baby analogy has no relevance in relation to countries giving more fiscal aid to other countries. If people were to give more aid to other countries, then they should also give more aid to the those within their own countries. Why should problems elsewhere be given more priority than the problems right here?
Personally, I would not save the baby. Charity should not arise from 'morals' or 'obligations'. It should arise because the individual or collective choose to do so. Sure it would be easy for me to save the drowning baby. I would only get wet. In return I save a life. But such a philosophical analogy disconnected of any other factor, also requires a philosophical answer disconnected of any other factor. It's not my immediate problem, I have no connection to it, therefore I don't have to save the baby.
Therefore, I am sick of the bullshit people shoot out about giving money to charities. Sure there are people who genuinely feel empathy and want to help. But where does the charity begin and end? Is it alright for them to give charity to certain causes but not others? And more importantly, how do people prioritise charitable causes?
If the point of charity is to help those in need, how is it that people are capable of discriminating which charities they consider to be important?
Although it may appear that I feel contemptuous towards charity, I don’t. Charity is a great concept. What I have contempt for is the way people behave towards certain causes. If people were genuinely concerned for the plight of others, then they should first consider how to help those in front of them.
*Nothing personal against Peter Singer. I just disagree with his analogy and its purpose.
