It is a cliche to say* that a disaster brings out the best and the worst in people, but it is true. One of the things that disaster brings out is the ability to spontaneously help others, including those whom one has never met and will never meet again.
This fact gets some people’s hopes up. If people can spontaneously come together and help one another in difficult times, why can’t they do so in normal times?
If some of us start being spontaneously helpful all the time, others will start to cheat. People will spontaneously distribute food to those stranded in flooded areas, precisely because it is an exceptional situation and the people stuck there will not ask for it as a matter of right. If they start doing it regularly, the recipients will start expecting it as a matter of right. Once the crisis has passed, the givers will not feel the same urgency, and they will start seeing what is in it for themselves.
That then, is the answer to those who want to conflate different “crises”. There are crises which require immediate action – like floods and earthquakes. There are also other nagging problems, like poverty and hunger, which kill more people than floods and earthquakes. So someone keeps getting the bright idea – why not call the latter set of problems “crises”? If only we could pull off the change in terminology, we can get the same response can’t we? Sorry, but the human mind does not work that way.
* It is also a cliche to say “It is a cliche to say”
Interesting that you mention the effects of perpetual charity. We call that government subsidies don’t we?
Well, yes, if you can call taking money from me on the pain of imprisonment and giving it to others “charity”. The very fact that these things have to be done forcibly tells us why perpetual charity is impracticable.
I guess, you also have to make a further distinction between hunger and poverty that come as a result of something seriously wrong with the system (lack of financial infrastructure, for example) as a whole; and the poverty and hunger that come as a result of business cycles. It’s the latter that becomes a tool in the hands of unscrupulous politicians and lazy, competition-fearing businessmen.
Ramnath, I suspect you are confusing your view of when it is ethical to intervene with when people are likely to voluntarily help out. In this post, I am concerned with the latter. I think that people will spontaneously help others when
1) They can say “But for the grace of God, go I” – i.e. they think that those who are in trouble are there for no fault of theirs, and it could very well be they who are in trouble
AND
2) The trouble hasn’t lasted long. If the crisis goes on and on, then people will start showing their nasty side once again.
This is a question of psychology – it should be possible to prove or refute this experimentally. I am sure there are other factors involved – a common bond, egalitarian attitude, presence of a common enemy, etc.
My point is, in your example, if people think that the hunger and poverty come from something seriously wrong with the system, people might help one another out – but if the trouble goes on for too long, they will stop.
You are probably making the distinction based on when you think it is okay for the government to intervene.
Yep, I was actually thinking of government intervention…. (It was also in response to Anand’s comment)
Now, of course, I see your point.
Hi Ravikiran
I read somewhere recently that most of the people who are saved in crises are saved by volunteer bystanders who happen upon the scene and not by official rescue workers. (I remembered, read this on India Uncut, and as I reread the post, I realize that you sent it to Amit. I think that fact illustrates the need for voluteerism in the time of crises is instinctual and vital.
When the situation is cronic and not a crisis, the people operate in a different mode. The know that their reserves of goodwill will be quickly drained if they continually help all of the needy. Instictively, they know that cronic problems have cronic causes, and charity doesn’t get at those causes.