Ten Arguments Against Relationship-Constrained Charity (4/4)
by Dominic Roser
In this blog series (the introduction is here), I argue that we shouldn’t focus on having a personal relationship with the ultimate recipients of our charitable donations, or with the NGO people who deliver the aid. Rather, we should just donate our money to the most effective organisations. I list ten considerations in favour of this position (considerations 1-7 are here and here):
8. Justice and Compassion
There are two reasons for donating money to people in poverty: Justice and Compassion. This can be seen particularly nicely in the story of Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus said: “Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor [Compassion], and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount [Justice].” Compassion goes generously beyond the call of duty whereas Justice is simply about giving others what they are due. In global poverty debates, for example, some claim that we ought to help the poor because the Western lifestyle and global domination creates poverty in the South. The reason for donations then is making up for a wrong, i.e. Justice. Others claim that the West does not harm the poor but that we ought to help nonetheless, simply because the poor are in need. The reason for donations then is Compassion.
What does this have to do with relationships? Well, if the reason for our donations is Justice, there is even less reason to apply a “relationship constraint” to our donations. If the money in our bank accounts isn’t truly ours but is rather owed to the poor then it is wrong to withhold our resources from the poor (as the rightful owners) simply because we haven’t developed a relationship with them yet. If we are merely the temporary stewards over this money and must pass it on to those who have a claim on it, then there should be no call for first developing a relationship with the recipient before doing our duty. Compare this to another case: An embezzler in a big company makes all kinds of people lose money. In such a case, the embezzler should pay the money back to each defrauded person regardless of whether she has any kind of personal relationship to them. The same goes for the normal employee working at the teller in the bank: she should hand over the money to the customer -- because it is his -- regardless of whether they know each other personally. Similarly with the poor: we should hand over the money -- because it is theirs -- regardless of whether we know them personally.
Personally, I think that the “relationship constraint” for donations is overblown even for donations based on Compassion. But here I just wanted to point out that such a constraint is even more questionable for donations based on Justice.
9. Adapting to a New World of Global Donations
We must also remember that the messages of the bible -- as well as the centuries of traditions of charity that shaped our current moral compass -- were developed in a world where it was technically much more difficult to help unknown strangers.
The possibility to donate very effectively to other parts of the planet only arose recently. Thus, we have to develop an “ethos” for dealing with this new situation. The former “ethos” of embedding all help in a personal relationship was developed in response to a world in which donating outside of some kind of relationship was not easily feasible on a wide scale anyway. The new ethos must question this “relationship constraint”.
10. Overlooking the Most Marginalized
By focusing our donations on those people with whom we already have (or can develop) a relationship, we are systematically leaving out the most marginalized. The most marginalized are often those people who are least connected to us by roads, by the internet, etc. -- and with whom it therefore comes less naturally to develop interactions. One aspect of poverty consists in lack of access to the life of the community and to the wider world. So-called “social capital” is one form of capital that many poor lack. In other words: Many poor suffer not only from a lack of material resources but also from a lack of access to those people who could provide them with the material resources. The rich should try to overcome this distance by deliberately orienting their donations towards those without access to society, particularly to wealthy society. The exclusion of the most marginalized not only prevents donations from being maximally effective but it is also unfair in itself. As Alex Rattee said: “I don’t want to live in a world where those who are suffering but have rich friends get privileged over those who are suffering but don’t.”
Thus, there are lot of -- admittedly overlapping -- considerations that speak against an excessive “relationship constraint” on our donations. Primarily, we should donate money where it is most effective. Whether the donation is embedded in a personal relationship is a secondary consideration.
None of this is to question the importance of relationships in general. To the contrary! I believe relationships are a core element of a flourishing life. And, in fact, this insight is something that Christians should advertise in the broader Effective Altruism community. The only claim I want to make here is that many Christians completely overemphasize the application of this insight to the specific case of donating money to charities. A relationship constraint on donations ultimately prevents many people from escaping poverty.
This blogpost isn’t evenhanded. Its purpose was to list the considerations for de-emphasizing the “relationship constraint”. Of course, there could also be arguments for emphasizing it. I look forward to discussing these in the comments section.
