26 January 2020
Charitable giving by rich ‘messiahs’ is not praise-worthy – but ethical duty to the poor
As Janu-worry comes to an end, many have been recipients of charitable giving as much as others suffered the ignominy of being paraded as charitable causes.
As the year matures, there’s a disturbing pattern worthy of attention: are those who give in the hope of getting praise worthy of our attention? What should we make of those who prey on the poverty and helplessness of others to brush up their public standing?
On social media this week, an unkempt, poverty-stricken child in Limpopo, dressed in oversized uniform, courtesy of his brother’s efforts, was caricatured by people brought up badly. This at a time when celebrities paraded their bundles of joy making their way to school for the first time. This child will one day look back at these psychological scars caused by poverty in her life.
Businessman Khalima Khungwayo looked for her and helped. Not only did he buy the uniform and take her for a hair cut, he also bought some groceries for a handful of other neighbouring families. He made sure a picture of the bakkie full of groceries was taken. What a messiah, we are supposed to think.
The EFF ensured the media was in sight when it went to the distraught family of Enoch Mpianzi following the horrific death of the Parktown Boys’ High pupil. The party’s announcement of legal help to the family is well-captured in the media. How benevolent! All political parties across the globe are guilty of this tendency to prey on people’s pains.
All altruistic efforts are, to the extent that they are not about self-promotion, to be welcomed and supported. Khungwayo could have just stayed at home – like many. My problem is when one makes the effort of giving more about themselves rather than the recipient, often the poor whose condition deprives them of the right to say no to these base media spectacles. It leaves a bitter taste.
It suggests that some of the well-off in society may, like wolves in sheep skin, be preying on the poor – waiting for a marketing opportunity. So their giving, therefore, is not for the good of giving – but a pursuit of self-interest.
Immanuel Kant wrote a book aptly titled Manichean Ethics. Manichaeism is an old, dualistic religion based on an evaluation of people’s conduct as either being good or evil. So, when people give when there’s no evident obligation on their part to, we naturally want to look at their conduct as good. When they prey on the helplessness of the poor, but giving of what they have, are they benevolent still or are their donations an investment in themselves?
When Patrice Motsepe, for example, makes available R100-million, some of which he allocates to churches and other non-profit organisations, but accompanies this with an advertising campaign to promote himself and his companies, how must we, from a Manichean ethics point of view, categorise his effort? If he’s genuinely just helping, why does he need the advertising campaign? How do we assess him against those with the means but who don’t even bother helping the poor?
It seems a grey area rather than Kant’s black or white approach.
In other writings, Kant asks this important question: on what is the duty to be charitable based? He later observes that charitable giving by the rich to the poor is necessary “restitution for an injustice of which he [the rich] is quite unconscious; though unconscious of it only because he does not properly examine his position [in society]”.
“Although we may be entirely within our rights, according to the laws of the land and the rules of our social structure, we may nevertheless be participating in general injustice, and in giving to an unfortunate man we do not give him a gratuity but only help to return to his that of which the general injustice of our system has deprived him. For if none of us drew to himself a greater share of the world’s wealth than his neighbour, there would be no rich or poor. Even charity therefore is an act of duty imposed upon us by the rights of others and the debt we owe to them.”
The above is the basis of the book The Ethics of Giving: Philosophers’ Perspective on Philanthropy edited by Paul Woodruff.
Thomas E Hill, in a chapter in the same book, says the rich “are obligated to redirect [their wealth] in ways that will benefit those who are unjustly disadvantaged by the relevant institutions” and considers that redistribution as “ethical duty” rather than something “not praiseworthy”.
In our context, when the Guptas, to be more flippant, give back to charitable causes, is their conduct virtuous or obligatory? Perhaps they should just be arrested and made to suffer asset forfeiture in accordance with our laws, if found guilty.
The point is, whether you know it or not, whether you accept it or not, the very rich among us are beneficiaries of the operations of a very unjust global order. If that is apartheid before 1994, or kleptocracy of those who donate to political parties and later fleece Eskom or other parastatals, or whatever, the rich have a moral duty to give to the poor. But is there a limit, asks Professor Liam Murphy, to the legitimate demands of morality?
While the rich have a moral duty, this is unenforceable. It depends on their conscience. And when they do give, the poor must not be forced to partake in interviews praising the giver. It would help if when the rich give, they stop making it a spectacle about themselves.
