Topic presented on by Stephanie P and Sam.
Beginning of class comments to the question: In relation to foreign ‘aid’ and ‘development’, is a person’s involvement an act of charity or obligation?
Stephanie N: charity is a personal, optional thing; not an obligation to give to charity
Eric: don’t know; obligation, but no coherent reasons why
Stephanie P: charity from a personal level
Sam: question is confusing; charity is a term, an entity; charity vs. obligation aren’t two opposing things
Will: confused by the terms; obligation, for me, is in regards to human rights and social justice issues and everything extending beyond that is charity
Anna: confused, depends on the issue; case-by-case decision whether its charity or obligation
Midori: universalist obligation; developed nations have an obligation to improve/help others who are drastically underdeveloped;
Kyla: universalist obligation; societies are formulated because of the need to associate with other human beings, and thus it is an obligation to help others; charity can be viewed differently in different contexts;
Andra: charity gives me the sense of being something impersonal, while obligation is something in which one is personally invested and it thus their responsibility to fulfill their duty; there’s a humanity aspect
Angela: obligation in terms of foreign aid; charity isn’t an obligation
Iran: depends on our society – if it’s an individualistic society, then you giving would be charity;
Feel to comment on whether you have solidified your perspective or whether you now feel differently in regards to the topic.
Tags: Class Topics
October 20, 2009 at 5:04 am |
I do still believe that we have an obligation to help others to the best of our abilities. In terms of how this should play out in real life, I think that our own government should tax us a certain percentage of our income and this goes towards a) the welfare state within our own country, and b) international aid.
Our government should create the infrastructure and resources to help those badly off within our own country because they are the most able to do so in an encompassing, effective way. The same goes for international aid.
Our own government should be responsible for the money aspect of aid (both within/out the country); this way there is one agenda, and this agenda is clear, open for scrutiny, and accountable to the people.
However, I don’t believe that we should simply let the government take our money and that this delineates the end of our obligations and responsibilities towards others. What I think we should give personally, is our time. Instead of handing out donations or writing a check to a charity, our own contributions should be volunteering, either abroad or within our own community. This will build more meaningful connections between people and expose others to different worlds, new experiences. There is a clear connection between community involvement (such as volunteering) and a better participatory democracy. See Putman’s book “Bowling Alone”.
Second to last thing. The video we saw in class, about how Conservatives in the States give more than Liberals is interesting, but obviously flawed. Perhaps Liberals give less to charities, because they know that their Liberal governments are using their tax money towards a similar cause. Perhaps that is why they tolerate more taxation. Inherently, the video implies that the aid given by charities is more effective than the aid given by governments.
Last thing: an anecdote.
I had a discussion once, with an American friend (Conservative) about his views on taxes. He said that if he saw a homeless person on the street, then he would gladly give him money. But, he claimed, he did not believe that governments should be able to just take money out of your paycheck automatically. He did not believe in taxes for the welfare state, citing governments as incredibly inefficient, money wasting machines.
In turn, I said that I was not willing to give money directly to a homeless person, because I didn’t know what that person was going to do with it. I also pointed out that by giving his spare change to a homeless person, my friend was only helping this person’s condition temporarily, and that homeless people could not simply depend on the temperamental goodwill of random people handing out change. This was not a good longterm solution to the problem of homeless people. There had to be in a place a system to deal with these issues, a system that was accountable and fair.
I still stand by this system. And I believe it is necessary to compliment it by donating one’s time to help others, as opposed to a check.
October 20, 2009 at 7:36 am |
During the class discussion, Will noted his opinions about the definitions of the words charity and obligation, and their distinctions. I think he (and I) got from the class discussion the notion that “charity” is negative while “obligation” is positive.
However, I find that for me, it is quite the opposite. I think “obligation” is where a person may be forced or pressured to conform/comply. Therefore, their contributions can not be considered entirely from the heart. Whereas, “charity” is where people choose to donate or contribute. “Charity” is where individuals are not forced to comply and do things/donate money because they are required to, but they want to. To me, I prefer the word charity over obligation.
October 20, 2009 at 7:24 pm |
In regard to my initial statements, I was thinking in terms of governments, not on an individual basis (I clearly missed that part). Personally I believe that there is an obligation to assist those less fortunate, but that is just a personal belief. I’m compelled to give to act in accord with my morals. While I see this as a universal value, others may not – then I don’t think they are obligated to give – but I think they should.
On a national scale, I believe the government has an obligation to assist in disaster relief/humanitarian aid as a more affluent society. In terms of development aid, I see less of an obligation – if a society values this, they should commit as an obligation. Most Canadians hold contributing to the welfare and development of the world as a value of theirs. As a national value, this becomes part of our foreign policy and should be reflected in our actions overseas. The tragedy here is our commitment to talking about that value, but failing to meet our foreign aid target. I also feel like this argument sees aid/charity as intrinsically good, despite our recent discussions. We all seem ready to give, but are the structures necessary for effective aid in place?
October 20, 2009 at 9:03 pm |
Expanding on my ideas from last class, I believe the reason the word “obligation” has adorned so much attention in the West, is because our lines of obligation are not as strong as they are elsewhere. We need to create “obligation” so we are invested, and thus charity has developed a definition for being “uninvested.” At the root of all good to humanity, in my opinion, is philanthropy- which exists outside of being what we are merely obligated to into a deeper bond between all people on a voluntary nature.
October 28, 2009 at 7:58 pm |
I think Will’s comment is excellent. The term “obligation” has become loaded, sometimes with negative connotations, because natural lines of association and support have deteriorated over time. Community support systems have broken down, so that the proverbial “village” is not nearly as prominent in everyday life as it used to be. As opposed to having ties of kinship of mutual responsibility, we seem to have placed value on not needing help, and not being dependent on one another. The need to prove one’s self worth by venturing forth alone and being completely self sufficient has overshadowed historical (and perhaps natural) lines of association. Any inherent sense of obligation is gone, and so we have had to create a sense of forced obligation to ensure some support systems are still in place – just as Will said, “we need to create ‘obligation’ so we are invested.” Thus, I think that charity can take many forms and can be informal, for example helping a neighbor, but because we have constructed an idea of formal charity and obligation, these areas are not recognized. The constructed definition has close ties with donating money or giving handouts, not recognizing the multitude of ways that humans have supported one another and could still support one another in a less formal setting.
November 2, 2009 at 7:45 am |
Jumping in, a tad late sorry, with my 2 cents.
I totally agree with Anna’s statement and would like to add something to it.
I think obligation has a distasteful connotation, when you were little you were obliged to do the dishes, today you are obliged to pay tuition, your taxes.
This sets up an us and them mentality (or to be academic: it initiates a process of othering). When your little its your annoying/nagging parents. As we get older its the perennially taking government or that university that drains you for all your worth.
But take this obligatory framework to international aid projects. Who is the other? I would argue that to an obligated donor the other becomes some aggravating basket-case country/society, too messed up (war, disease, famine, corruption) to take care of themselves so you’re obliged to do it for them.
Given the immense talent and ability in developing countries and societies this is a pretty unhealthy framework to approach development from. Furthermore its depressing and persistent which doesn’t exactly inspire anything above the bare minimum effort.
Charity, though it has been problematized too, comes from the idea that humans should love and care about each other. Right off the bat I think that inspires someone to look for potential in another human, to look for hope. It can perhaps result in othering, but I would argue that its less harmful because at least compassion, empathy and relationships can spring forth.
November 2, 2009 at 6:47 pm |
I wish to comment on Iran’s last in-class thought, which was “it depends on our society – if it’s an individualistic society, then you giving would be ‘charity’” because it broadened my own perspective on this topic.
We are an outcome of our social upbringing; whether we give or not likely has links to whether our immediate relatives/friends give or not. An act of ‘charity’ to one who is worse off than the giver, is a voluntary act of generosity that is not dictated by any social norms. On the other hand, to give to those worse off than the giver is an ‘obligation’ when there is a social contract. A social contract entails that individuals are expected to agree to this social contract if they wish to partake in society. There are, of course, different levels of giving. I would argue that in our society, we have entered into a social contract where giving is an ‘obligation,’ not a voluntary act of generosity – ‘charity.’ In our welfare state, we are obliged to give to others in our country through taxes. If you are not paying taxes, such as myself because I do not make more than $17 000 a year, then I am of the ‘more needy’ sect. However, I do not consider myself so, so I will give my time instead of the money I would be giving through taxes.
However, this sense of ‘obligation’ does not exist across the board for all Canadians, much less the whole world. Tanja above argued that we may start ‘othering’ when we look for ‘potential’ in those to whom we are giving. I agree that this is reality, but I wonder if it can be another way.
The further along we go in this class, the more I’m becoming acquainted with my sense of ‘utopia.’ I consistently hit a wall and feel at a loss that I cannot put forth a plan about how we can get close to an ‘utopia.’ I feel that getting in touch with the positive aspects of our humanity is essential, but how do we argue this to all humans? Is it a loss? Should I turn around and become a historian (I’m a History major) as opposed to trying to change people’s perspectives of their ‘humanity’?
November 29, 2009 at 9:26 am |
I think that my gender talk might start to address your question Andra.
I think its the approach that many organizations, like Oxfam, use. Point out the amazing people that do amazing things and inspire a sense of awe in us the so called empowered and resourced group. I think humans have an instinct that gravitates towards things that are inspiring. Hearing a story of someone like you, in a situation that you can’t imagine, somehow getting through the day makes you want to be a part of their story, a part of making sure that it is ok in the end.
Do yo think this model circumnavigates the obligation baggage? What about in disaster situations – how do you show empowerment?
December 1, 2009 at 8:49 am |
I think whether it is charity or obligation can be understood from the point of view of the donor and the receiver. It is likely that if the donor is individualistic he/she would think of giving as an act of charity. On the other hand, if the donor is a socialist he/she would consider the act of giving as obligation.
But what does the receiver think? This it the question that I have a hard time answering. I have been a donor but not much of a receiver. Is it your obligation to help me if I am poor? Can I demand your help and go as far as saying it’s my right? Or if you help me, I should turn to you and say, you are very nice. thanks.
I don’t know. I guess this too is subjective. It depends on the situation and the relationship b/w the donor and the receiver.
December 4, 2009 at 6:21 am |
Iran brought up an interesting question: “ What does the receiver think?”
If I was the receiver, in relation to how I was brought up, I would not look too positively on an act of ‘charity.’ I envision that I would view it as ‘a hand out’ and something that takes away from my sense of agency. I would feel disempowered.
On the other hand, if I was brought up to think that my birth was of act of randomness, and thus I was everyone’s child, would I view the act of giving as an obligation to those less fortunate?
Are your ideas about charity and obligation related to what you think about your birth? (This notion came from an Econ class, which I’m sure that Eric remembers
)
December 1, 2009 at 9:01 am |
I definitely relate to you, Andra. I have also been thinking about those things. How can we get there? Are we ever gonna get there? I ask myself all these questions and find myself quite hopeless about the future. But what keeps me going is looking at the big picture in the time frame of geological years. I think that “changing people’s perspective on their humanity” as you put it takes time, time that is beyond my life span. I have accepted that I am not going to see a lot of positive big changes in my life. For one thing I won’t see the MDGs happening in my life time (unless I live for 200 yrs, not happening!) I see this as a process or a long road. Each generation takes a few steps towards the the destination that you refer to as “utopia.” I will take a few steps. I’ll raise my kids so they will take a few more steps. And finally, maybe in 1000 yrs we’ll get there.
Of course, we could take backward steps too. So we should set short term goals, be “ethically responsible” individuals and raise our children to do the same, tell our friends and family, generate some discussion, spread the good message, etc. OK, I think I’m starting to sound like a preacher now, so I’m gonna stop. Hope this made sense.
December 1, 2009 at 9:08 am |
My personal understanding of obligation in relation to international development, or humanitarian efforts in general, is that it is closely tied to a personal sense of responsibility and awareness. Having an obligation in international development begins with being aware of the interconnectedness one person has with people across the globe. More specifically that in this increasingly globalized world, every action we make, every product we decide to consume have consequences that reach further than we can imagine. The obligation then is to make responsible choices and actions that reflect this understanding of human connectedness.
If obligation were to be understood in that context, the notion of charity becomes problematic. Charity suggests that the actors, the ones giving the charity are some how disconnected from the receiver, or the issue, but have decided to give, out of the goodness of ones heart. Furthermore, the notion of charity reinforces notions of problem there, solutions here, developed/undeveloped and other binaries denoting power and superiority.
Upon rethinking the issue of the debate, I think an interesting topic would be obligation vs choice; whether people should be forced to engage in issues of international development, or given the freedom to choose whether or not they would like to remain ignorant of their affects on the world around them.
December 2, 2009 at 7:23 am |
This discussion of “utopia” is an interesting one.
I think, individually I most definitely live in a utopia- well off, upper middle class, parent’s provide for me, study at UBC, etc.
But collectively, I cannot say we live in a utopia anymore than someone like Swaziland for instance. Just like Swaziland has one of the highest HIV/Aids rates in the world, we in Vancouver have Canada’s poorest postal code, and have the most youth living below the poverty rate.
Personally, I believe that my experiences through charity- through stepping beyond my individual obligations to my family, friends, and loved ones to complete strangers that I have never met in my life- has created in me a greater sense of obligation.
I think that perhaps we can use charity as a means to an end, rather than use obligation as that means.
December 2, 2009 at 8:43 am |
Also, a comment to Midori’s comment.
I think there are good intentions in stating that “I think that our own government should tax us a certain percentage of our income and this goes towards a) the welfare state within our own country, and b) international aid.”
But I think in practice, it would be very difficult. I agree with the a) part where if the government was to increase taxes in order to restructure or rebuild certain areas within our own country (eg. downtown Eastside), then there may be a substantial amount of support from voters, etc.
However, I think it may be more difficult to ask for a specific tax increase in order to subsidize foreign aid. One, we don’t know how beneficial foreign aid really is. Two, voters don’t want to spend more money or have taxes increase. So, I think in reality, it would be very hard for the government to raise taxes a specific amount to justify and supply foreign aid.
Also, with regards to the idea of spending less money, and spending more time. I don’t see how spending more time within a country is going to help development in another country… when there’s no money or anything involved.
Even with ISLs, voluntourism, etc. you need to have money.
And again, of course, spending more time bonding with other communities is an ideal that I’m sure if we can achieve (without money).
December 3, 2009 at 2:46 am |
I decided to re-visit this thread as it had been a while since I posted. Everyone’s comments regarding their own experiences and understanding of the meaning of charity versus obligation are great, and I thought that rather than go with a holistic/gut-feeling of the meaning of these terms, I’d look up the “official” meanings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definitions of “charity” and “obligation” are as follows:
Charity:
4. Benevolence to one’s neighbours, especially to the poor; the practical beneficences in which this manifests itself. a. as a feeling or disposition; charitableness. b. as manifested in action: spec. alms-giving. Applied also to the public provision for the relief of the poor, which has largely taken the place of the almsgiving of individuals.
Obligation:
3. a. orig. Sc. Moral or legal constraint; the condition of being morally or legally bound; the constraining power of a law, duty, contract, or (more generally) custom, habit, etc. Also (occas.): an instance of such constraint. b. An act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; what one is bound to do; a duty, commitment. Now (also): an enforced or burdensome task or charge.
I chose the definitions that I thought best fit the context of the course discussion, but I highly recommend that you look up “charity” and wade through the definitions regarding Christianity that come before the one I chose to copy and paste above. Based on these definitions, it seems that charity is more of moral commitment in terms of benevolence, and obligation has legal connotations…but also moral implications. So charity has more to do with kindness, and obligation more to do with enforced responsibility. Also, “burdensome” is included in the definition of obligation, which might contribute to the pejorative terms in which obligation is framed. Charity seems more voluntary, obligation more required.
After a bit of etymology, I’ve come to the conclusion that what the actions are called is not as important as the impact that they have.
December 4, 2009 at 2:41 am |
I wholeheartedly agree with Sam’s comment. I think that the whole charity vs. obligation is a false dichotomy. They are not opposite sides of the same coin, but two different things. The fact that they aren’t opposites is what confused a lot of us in class, and (at least for me) the confusion continues now. In my opinion, like Sam said, the dichotomy of obligation vs. choice in regards to charity (or aid, or development, or whatever you want to call it) would make for a much more substantive debate. Both charity and obligation are loaded terms and are very subjective and context specific. I don’t think any of us would argue that we have a legal obligation to give charity as we are obligated to pay taxes, but it is a much more subtle choice that gets down to each one of us and how we feel about humanity.
I would agree that people who want to contribute to better society but might not necessarily have a ton of cash laying around should donate their time by volunteering. However, I don’t think we should delude ourselves into thinking that any amount of time and human connection will do more good than cold hard cash. It would be awesome if people could do both, but if faced with the choice, I think that we should concentrate on what we, as a rich, capitalist society do best – make money – and use part of that money to help empower those with less opportunities than us.
December 4, 2009 at 9:20 pm |
Everyone should take a study break for a few minutes and watch this comedic rant on giving charity/sponsoring children in Africa. I’m generally not much of a Dane Cook fan, but this is especially poignant (and hilarious) for this discussion and our class in general.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=38090492
Basically he talks about the fact that no one gives charity to sponsor poor African children, and blames the old white guy in the commercial. He takes an interesting approach – that the guy asking for money is just too nice, and Americans need their asses kicked in order for them to do something.
While it would be truly epic to see a world vision commercial where the old white guy yells at the viewing audience about how they’re stingy and inconsiderate, this probably won’t happen any time soon. However, this has gotten me thinking about how westerners view the idea of sponsoring children. The standard world vision commercial that Dane Cook is making fun of here seems to suggest that westerners view sponsoring children as a benevolent act of charity out of the pity they have for the starving African children who are playing in a puddle on the commercial. How would the other approach change this? If there was more pressure on westerners to get off their couches and do something about the huge income disparity in the world, would they see it more as an obligation?
December 4, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
I’m glad Eric noted that charity and obligation are not in fact dichotomous terms. This is what Sam and I concluded when we were working on this presentation. We sat down and discussed what we had come up with regarding our respective concepts and realized that the two were somehow linked, though at the same time remained independent of one another. We couldn’t argue one position against the other.
While I agree that the term ‘obligation’ does have a negative connotation, as Kyla mentioned, I think that when it is used in the context of ‘charity’, it perhaps takes on a more humanistic quality. As in, we may feel an obligation (morally bound) to our fellow citizens to do what we are able to improve their lives, but this nevertheless becomes an act of charity (alms-giving, via Kyla’s definition). Clearly, it is often difficult, particularly when we consider the moral implications of these terms, to separate them completely from one another.
In our presentation we pointed to the example of obligatory charity (zakat) as found in many Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, wherein residents who meet a certain income threshold must contribute 2.5% of their annual income to charity. I continue to struggle with this concept and whether or not I think there is anything lost by making charity a legal obligation. When it becomes a legal mandate to allocate a certain percentage of your income to helping those less fortunate, I feel that it is still an act of charity, but the internal satisfaction one gets from CHOOSING to help others without being forced is lost. For some reason, in my mind, the concept of charity is dependent on it being ‘optional’, though I know that this isn’t necessarily the case. I think that I’ve decided that this is neither a positive nor a negative thing. On the receiving end, the motivations of the giver are essentially irrelevant; it is the action itself that is important.
December 4, 2009 at 11:37 pm |
It comes down to how we define charity on their own terms. We have an obligation to contribute something that will further society, whether it be through our skills, time, knowledge, or with money. It is up to the individual how far they set the boundaries; that is, how much they want to give. And who they choose to give to (based on personal experiences, something that has reached out to them). Charity is one form of obligation.
When it comes to donating to international charities, such as those in developing countries, we have an obligation to give back in a form of charity if we’ve taken something away from the country (eg. if you are a company mining in the phillipines); as a nation (government level), we have an obligation to help those in developing in countries ONLY if they ask for help…not because we think they need aid; at a community and individual level, we have an obligation to provide charity that will help our community thrive and possess a good quality of life…our tax money pays for the aid given at the international level and TRUST the government to allocate the funds appropriately. However, when the government’s aid is insufficient, we need to find new charitable avenues