Philanthropy is not just mere moral code

"Roger, the self-appointed captain of the lifeboat, proclaimed, "This boat can hold twenty people, and there are only twelve of us on the boat, and we have plenty of rations to last us till the rescue team arrives, which won't be more than 24 hours. So we can safely allow ourselves to relax and enjoy on some warm cocoa…any objections?"  “Err...this is indeed a reassuring situation, but rather than enjoy on extra cocoa, shouldn't we try to rescue that drowning lady who's been shouting for help?” asked Mr. Mates. A few people bent their head down to avoid confrontation, while others couldn't care less. "I thought we had agreed that it's not our fault that she's drowning! If we picked her up, we wouldn't be able to enjoy our extra rations! Why should we unsettle the cozy set up here?" And there were surprising nods of agreement to this. Mr. Mates retorted angrily, "Because she is dying and it's our responsibility to save her!! Isn't this reason enough?" "Life is a bitch, if she dies it's not because we killed her", said a cold-hearted Roger.” (Source: 'Lifeboat Earth', by Onora O'Neill, republished in "World Hunger and Moral Obligation", edited by W.Aiken and H.La Follette)"

The excerpt is no doubt appalling, perhaps even a mite disturbing to some.  It’s hard to imagine and liken ourselves to Roger’s persona – cold, selfish and completely oblivious to suffering. There is something innately inhuman about the reaction of such people, and of the inertia of those people on the boat, comfortably avoiding confrontation, and acknowledgment of any injustice.  It’s hard to imagine such extents of denial and negligence. However, if the boat is analogized to a developed and prosperous country/community which has surplus resources and the dying woman represents all those underprivileged millions dying every day of hunger and from lack of basic resources, the reactions from Roger and those on the boat are no longer as unfamiliar and shocking.

Philanthropy is heralded as a righteous deed for it requires compassion, empathy and generosity of spirit to look beyond one’s own life and uncertainties, to want to help others in need. But the above analogy reduces philanthropy to a mere duty. It can be reasonably argued that the resistance to save a dying woman because of the fear of losing one’s own resources is a major crime. So are we all in some sense failing to fulfill our moral duties and participating in some latent “crime”? There are three main arguments as to why this analogy might fail in comparison to the real world – 1) despite the world having shrunk, people now live in isolated bubbles. Hardly does a person immersed with corporate life get to witness someone suffer or die. We are cut off from such encounters, that feelings of empathy and compassion never get a chance to surface and we’re left with apathy, 2) with world news at our fingertips, one can argue that graphic images of people suffering and dying are available aplenty, but contrary to the analogy, wherein people are aware of a concrete solution to help the woman, we in the real world are often left helpless and disconnected, probably a consequence of futile empathy turned to revulsion. “What can I do with my little resources and energy to help those, a continent away?” and 3) the problems in the real world are far more severe, and the efforts required are not as simple as a onetime offer of help with food or money. The roots are deep, and it requires long term commitment to work on strategies and sustain our energy to help, till there is a difference.

Most people in our societies fall under the category of those on the boat, who are comfortably cocooned from many of the serious problems of the World. I was one such a person, myself. Charity organizations such as Anand Charity have been striving to bring in much needed awareness to inform and bring cases of suffering much closer to reality, to give compassion and empathy a chance to surface. With the advent of social networking and people living in virtual media, Anand Charity has taken steps to use it as a medium to communicate and bring more awareness of problems that need our collective help. In some ways, we are trying to increase the number of Mr. Mates, hoping that the collective voices for help will reach more ears. We have also been working on strategies to efficiently lay down the means for helping the underprivileged, serving as a bridge for those who would like to help but lack proper direction. I too had my doubts – “how much can I afford to contribute? Will my meager contributions make any difference at all?” But I have learned that they do – a pool of such meager contributions, soon changes its scale in multiple proportions. The successful projects and the increase in new projects stand as testimony that we have indeed made a difference to the lives of many. And such an inspiration, that my little offer of help, in its own way did make a difference, has been powerful to sustain my efforts and commitment to future projects.

We still value philanthropy as generosity of spirit, not just as a mere moral code – the amount of donation that a person can afford matters little in comparison to their willingness to help, and sustenance of spirit. Please consider donating to our projects, and help us make a difference to the world.