Hello, SE! Thank you so much for your question. It is a question that umbrellas a set of questions which have dogged me for years: Do I have a moral duty to give to charity? If I do, then how much, and to whom?* What role ought the State occupy in such charitable endeavours? And to what extent is the act diminished through personal satisfaction? The list goes on.
Indeed, the very reason the list goes on is what makes the question so apt for philosophical investigation, essential to which is assessing the questions themselves – to ‘let the fly out of the fly-bottle’, as Wittgenstein famously put it. So, what might we discern from applying this method to the question at hand?
Well, first-off, we note that our question itself is not free from ambiguity. Is it meant that charity is pointless because it doesn’t have a unifying, ultimate, or easily identifiable goal? And what is the intended referent of the word ‘charity’? Is it (i) a class of organisations, (ii) the voluntary giving of assistance, or (iii) an act of tolerance/kindness? Or perhaps a combination of the three?
In fact, I find that the most common complaint which crops-up in conversation goes something like this: “Any amount of money which I might donate to a charitable organisation is so insignificant that in the grand scheme of things it can’t possibly make a difference. Why should I put myself out of pocket when doing so is apparently futile? If my contribution doesn’t matter, then what’s the point?”
And so it is that we settle on our question: Is charity pointless? In other words, what’s the point of giving to charity?
Initially it’s important to note that our dilemma isn’t unique to matters of charity; rather, it’s endemic throughout our lives. The problem occurs whenever a group causes some morally significant outcome, but no single act seems to make a difference. Such that becoming a vegan, emitting less C02, joining a worker’s strike (etc.) all suffer the same affliction – they all seem pointless in the grand scheme of things.
The problem is that the issue has a deflationary effect upon our agency. Being an agent means acting in a way which has a particular result. But when my agency has no recognisable outcome, then what’s the point of me being an agent? The trouble arises, however, when this attitude is shared by all. If everybody suddenly ceased giving to charity, what then?
I think the real question reveals itself here: If all charitable activity were to come to an abrupt end, would we be happy being the type of people who are okay with that? If we answer this question in the affirmative, then maybe charity is pointless. If, on the other hand, the question comes back negative, then there might be a point to charity after all – albeit a somewhat elusive one.
But just because we cannot precisely determine certain categories doesn’t necessarily render them pointless. We cannot exactly determine how many hairs an individual need lack in order to be classified as bald, but that doesn’t make such a classification meaningless.
Though there is no perfect solution to a dilemma which has racked the minds of philosophers for millennia, I think that sometimes we just need to give up the idea that in order to act meaningfully we need to make a notable difference. Sometimes we have to be content with the mere act of making a contribution. Nevertheless, if solace can’t be found in judging our actions by their consequences, we might have better luck in looking toward our aspirations. So long as we continue to care about things, there’s hope.
* Interestingly, Oxford philosopher, Tony Orb, inspired by the work of Peter Singer, suggests giving a minimum of 10% of one’s income to the most effective organisations: Giving What We Can.
What do you think? Is charity pointless? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Be sure to check out our podcast!
If you like what we do, you can support us by buying us a coffee!
Image: (credit)
Having studied philosophy at both undergraduate and postgraduate level at the University of London, Birkbeck College, I am now an employee of the Erasmus School of Philosophy, Rotterdam, where I work as both a teacher and junior researcher in philosophy. Currently I’m engaged in a NWO funded project in social choice theory, looking specifically at personal preference and resource depletion. I see philosophy as an interconnected whole and so I tend to read widely. I also think – like many of my colleagues – that philosophy is sorely absent from much of public discourse. But, then again, I would say that…