Am I Living an Ethical Life? Are You?
Posted on 24 October 2009
By Sherine Jayawickrama
I’ve known since I was 18 that I wanted to be involved in the fight against poverty – not just as a passion but also as a profession. I’ve been working on development issues (either in my home country of Sri Lanka or from a more global perspective – within a large international NGO and now from a perch in an academic setting) for close to 15 years. And, although my passion for development and my sense of outrage about the status quo has only grown, I realized last week that that was inadequate.
One of the wonderful things about being based at Harvard is that I get to attend fascinating events and hear inspiring speakers on a regular basis. Better still, sometimes I get to organize such events. Even though I was well aware of the ground it was going to cover, the conversation between Peter Singer and Rich Stearns on October 22 (attended by nearly 400 people) moved me.
Peter Singer and Rich Stearns challenged my head and my heart, and held me up to a much higher moral standard than I set for myself. I realized that I had grown comfortable in feeling like I was already doing my part by committing myself professionally to global development (and perhaps even feeling a bit self-satisfied that I do more than most people to fight poverty).
Peter Singer burst that bubble by arguing for a much higher standard of ethical behavior. In his view, given that I spend much more of my income than I need to lead a comfortable life, I am not living a truly ethical life. Rich Stearns, a devout evangelical Christian who is president of World Vision U.S., set a similarly high standard for Christians. He argued that the gospel calls for compassion for the poor and demands that such compassion be turned into action. In Rich’s view, one is not a true Christian unless one’s faith is demonstrated by action to improve the situation of the poorest communities in the world.
In today’s climate, where debates are polarized and disagreements are shrill, it was heartening to see two individuals from such different ideological backgrounds choose to focus on what they had in common – and set aside the ideologies that would divide them. They engaged each other with civility and respect, pointing frequently to the convergence between their arguments.
Both Peter Singer and Rich Stearns focused a lot on money: they called on people to give much more of their incomes to organizations that work with poor communities in developing countries. I suspect that message left a strong impression (it certainly has triggered a serious conversation about giving in my household!) but what I felt was the more complete argument came in response to an audience question.
The causes of poverty are so complex that increased financial investment in development efforts is only part of the solution. Some of the reasons why poverty is so persistent originate from industrialized countries – from legacies of the colonial past and support for corrupt leaders to unfair agricultural subsidies and ununhibited use of fossil fuels. Other drivers of persistent poverty come from within developing countries. Thus, donating substantially to poverty-fighting efforts is a moral obligation, but using one’s voice and vote to press for responsible laws, policies and practice in the west – and more and better developing country ownership – is equally important. Only charity won’t end poverty.
Peter Singer and Rich Stearns are both compelling speakers and their call to action made people sit up and listen. You might say I drank the kool aid. I say it was good for my soul.
5 responses to Am I Living an Ethical Life? Are You?
Leave a Response
Subscribe
Beware of the kool aid you drink. (Remember Jonestown)
I believe it is a mistake to concentrate on blame using guilt as a justification for action. There is no shame for not giving up one’s own possessions; the reality is we will not stop hunger by eating all the food on our plate (maybe if we didn’t cook so much in the first place). We should not feel any superiority for being motivated to help, any more than we should feel inadequate for not being able to accomplish all that we had hoped. We learn the most from those we hope to serve, that is: we do the best we can with what we have and keep trying to improve. The fact is, I think, whatever one’s personal motivation; it is very difficult to get a sense of accomplishment, but rather an aching feeling of frustration, because no matter at what level, it is not enough. It is not us who are inadequate, but the system as a whole.
We have to stop thinking in terms of individual actions, QGA (quasi governmental agencies), NGO focus groups, academic research, religious orders, and charity organization, all of which make real differences as individuals for isolated pods, but without any wholistic substantive sustainable improvement, and according to some the overall net effect of these efforts is to exacerbate, rather than mitigate, the conditions.
The conditions are immense and complex, but we tend to fear complexity, seeking quick fixes with simple solutions from “outside the box”. Simple solutions to difficult problems are usually short term partial fixes, with little positive effect on the whole, leading to reoccurring conditions compounded by unintended consequences, the net effect being zero or less. Solutions from outside the box are often research focused looking for replacement models that end up reinventing that which is stashed in some hidden corner inside the box.
There is no one strategy that is a cure-all, except perhaps a wholistic integrated unified collaboration of the extensionalists and those in need. There is no single profession that can independently fix the problem, relying solely on their own expertise drawing on tools of their own trade, although each is a necessary member of the successful team. There is no one set of linear parallel approaches, from the top, bottom or sideways, that can lead to the same desired destination, although orchestrating convergent paths from all approaches can.
Having a fair amount of academic and professional experience (engineer), as well as serving impoverished communities in Africa and SE Asia, I have come to believe that a wholistic integrated synergistic alliance is perhaps the only viable strategy to eradicate extreme poverty. The alliance should be comprised of a dedicated team of diverse and necessary talents striving together along convergent paths in a concerted effort to reach the ultimate objective, using the skills and tools of all applying effective strategic planning, decision making, and good organizational practices; a united front utilizing the resources and knowledge of each specialist that best applies to the specific set of conditions which are vastly different community to community, country to country, continent to continent, and game to game. There are plenty of case studies and metaphors in sports, engineering, business, medicine, and politics that can be used as models for success.
The resolve to keep trying comes from those suffering the most, who have an uncanny but sadly fatalistic drive to get through the best they can with what they have, accepting it as the will of who and whatever, but never giving up hope, always with a brilliant sincere smile; their perseverance is truly amazing. Those of us who seek to help can do no less, but it can be hard to smile.
“Wholistic integrated synergistic alliance…?” What does that even mean?
I get really frustrated that people in the developed world, academics in particular, spend their time “promoting social justice” but have really cushy lives (@Sherine, that’s not directed at you– I think it’s good your asking these questions) . It’s painful irony. I think that the entire framework needs to shift. We need to demand more practical solutions to the problem of poverty, particularly if those solutions have implications on how we live our lives in the developing world. We need to employ fewer buzzwords and come up with tangible ways that we can deal with the issues. I say we start with our behaviors.
Why did you delete my comment? It was 1. nice, 2. clean, 3. on topic, and 4. not spam.
Do you normally censor your comments? You should let your community know if that is the case.
No, comments are not censored! I have been traveling and did not see your comment in the queue until I logged on just now. It should be on the blog now.
Thanks Sherine for raising the ethical issue.
As an anti-poverty advocate and development worker and a christian, these are the ethical ‘baggage’ one carries around. Is a 10% christian tithe adequate to salve your conscience cos you have done your duty or should you push yourself further until it is you who are living on 10% and giving 90% of your income away? Why should you do without anyway when some thug who has managed to get political office is siphoning away what he and his whole family cannot spend even if they live over two million years? Should one be collecting a consultancy fee that can feed a whole village for a month? If you don’t, will that money go into the direct program costs that actually do get to reach the target populations? Should development be a job or a vocation?
The real question is how much should we sacrifice on an individual basis in order to meet the highest of ethical standards when the actual duty bearers renege on their commitments? Is it right to work to kill the conscience because each time you consider eating a full meal you recall the children you see and know who are hungry, because when you consider taking your family on a holiday trip, you consider the cost and what else it can achieve for others?
The dilemmas are endless and except managed can lead to a truly fraustrating and psychologically unstable life! And so we look for the anchors in our lives, we hold unto just, equitable and democratic governance ideals which are still unattained anywhere in the world, advocating that this will solve global poverty, never quite having the full picture of what we dream because the definitions, the times, the minimum standards of development keep shifting, the semantics get heavier and the actions get bogged down by the bureaucracies and processes we tie ourselves up with.
You know what Sherine, the more ethical we get, the more we play by the established rules, the more we constrain ourselves with the finesse of development and the less we become our ‘brother’s keeper’. The alternatives are however no clearer and hold no better promise and so we keep on taking one step forward and two backwards. All that keeps us on the path is hope.