Most of us
think that giving to charity is a good thing. At most we will criticises organised
charities, stating that they do not really help people because the executives’ salaries
are too high or they are simply run by paper-pushing bearcats. However, even
this analysis presupposes that charity is a good thing but it is being blocked by
organisation principles. We rarely question whether charitable giving is actually a
virtue. This is a discussion about the evils of charity.
Before we
begin, I suppose I better tell you what I think charity is. A charity is a
non-governmental organisation (NGO) which provides a service to society. Examples
include foodbanks, homeless shelters, and research organisation. They primarily
operate using voluntary donations from the public that result from countless campaigning
strategies, such as tipping ice cold water over your head, running a marathon
etc. The most important aspect about charity is that giving time or money is
not compulsory. This is in contrast to taxation, which is compulsory to pay and
funds government run services, such as national health service and welfare
system. So now that I have defined what charity is and isn’t, let us begin.
The first reason to dislike charity is because charitable
giving promotes immoral behaviour.
As
counterintuitive as it may seem, there is a lot of work on something called “moral
licencing”. This is the effect in which doing something good now gives people
licence to do bad later. While it is not the giving to charity per se that
causes the immoral actions but it is feeling sanctimonious instead. Nonetheless,
since charitable giving is intertwined with self-righteousness it is subject to
the same criticism.
However,
there is an alternative effect called moral cleansing. This effect occurs when
you do something bad, it motivates you to do something good, like give to
charity. Some could argue that charity serves a role of rehabilitating those
who have already done wrong. While this is true, it is not necessary. There are
better and more effective means of rehabilitation. Charity is not unique in changing
those who have already perpetrated. Since it has the side effect of corrupting others,
perhaps it is best avoided.
The second reason to dislike charity is that it
is affected by the biases of individuals.
We all hold
some unconscious biases and it should be said that these are helpful because
they help speed up decision making. However, these biases have a dark side
which include the ability to have an automatic dislike of black people, LGBT
people, and women. If we lived by the charitable philosophy of giving £10 to a
homeless person, it wouldn’t surprise me if a disproportionate amount of
funding went to white straight men.
Some could
argue one way to overcome this bias would be to have organised charities, which
would then distribute services irrespective of race, gender, sexuality or
religion. However, the problem with this model is that individuals are still
deciding which organisations to fund. These biases will creep into
organisations by overfunding those that disproportionately help straight white
men and underfunding those charities used mainly by minorities. Nonetheless,
this shows that individuals are biased, and the seeps into their charitable
decision making.
The third reason to dislike charity is because it
relies on an ineffective and unaccountable system of funding allocation.
The current
funding mechanism is through the market. Individuals chose to give their money
to some areas and not to others. The logic of the argument is when there is no
need for the service, then it will not be funded. When there is a need, people
will fund it. The market ensures that money goes where it is needed. Therefore,
the market represents the aggregate of individual’s funding decisions. However,
there have been cases in which a specific charity is overfunded and others
which are clearly underfunded. If we are to rely entirely on logic of market
economies, then this problem doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as over- or
under-funding.
Since the
market represents the aggregate of individuals, it makes it difficult to hold someone
to account for their decisions that resulted in systemic failure. This is
unlike the government, who receives taxation and therefore is able to
distribute the funding proportionately. If a government fails, we can hold it
to account so that it can adjust faulty funding arrangements. Therefore,
charity relies on market economies, which is an ineffective and unaccountable means
of funding allocation.
The fourth reason to dislike charity is because
it goes against democracy.
In the
recent referendum, Britain voted in favour of democracy so it is clearly
something we value. Democracy is essentially majority rule. All individuals are
given the same amount of influence, one vote, regardless whether they are an aristocrat
or pauper. The market provides the allusion of democracy, because it gives the
illusion of collective participation. Everyone can choose where to spend their
money.
However,
instead of being given one vote each, people’s ability to influence services
depend on how much money they donate. Since we live in a society in which
wealth and income is stratified, the affluent can have greater influence. If we
rely on charities within society, then it is a plutocracy we live in and not a
democracy.
Conclusion and Disclaimers.
Here I have presented a negative thesis. I have deconstructed charity without effectively presenting a viable alternative. Although providing services funded by taxation is an alternative approach that requires a positive thesis. I encourage readers to think about this. Instead of considering charitable giving as a virtue of individuals, we should consider a symptom of a failed state. Perhaps in the future, I will write this.
I
suppose I need to end with a disclaimer. Charity is a means of funding
essential services. Here I am not arguing for the abolition of the services. To
say otherwise would be a perverse misunderstanding. Instead I present the idea for
them to be funded in a different way, through taxation. We do this with some services, such as the NHS and welfare state.
In conclusion, if you want
to promote moral behaviour, if you thinking funding allocation should be
effective, unbiased against minorities, and accountable, and if you value
democracy, then you can’t support charity. Charity is infused with the idea of sanctimony
and free-markets, without any form of irony.
