Who is my neighbour?
Who is my neighbour? If I am presented with an electronic cacophony of voices in need, what filter do I use? There’s no need to belabour the point that the dull roar can become deafening and overwhelming. However, the routine turning away from any aid of support as a response is morally vacuous. There’s an assumption in there that if you as an individual can’t save the world, then there is no point in doing anything. However, we are fully capable of choosing a set of filters so that individual voices can become distinguishable, and humbling ourselves to accept a partial role.
Vaguely, on and off for the last two years, I’ve been dipping my toe into the murky waters of development, and simultaneously trying to ascertain what role the church and Christians might play in it. A book entitled “What is the mission of the church?” by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert presents a conservative position on that question. At one point they zero in on this question of filters and offer the “principle of moral proximity.” It’s not problematic in itself – however, I’d like to discuss some potential distortions in the presentation and adoption of it.
The two argue that in navigating all the voices that lay claim on our help and support, usually financially, we need to prioritise those who are close to us. This could be geographically or relationally. They bring out this priority in various biblical texts, for example Jesus’ condemnation of those who diverted financial support for their parents to the temple (perhaps in order to appear holier) and Paul’s similar sentiments. They also highlight the fact that Israel and later the church were directed to prioritise their own people over other groups. While this is discrimination, we must choose where to direct finite resources, and if they believed in the beauty and virtue of a movement, this support allowed them not only to support the poor within it but also to help preserve that movement.
This morally and emotionally intuitive filter preserves our humanity, and inversely protects us from the inhumanity of a utilitarian system taken too far. For instance, imagine that your brother has recently been unemployed, and you wish him well but explain that you can’t help him because you are financially restricted by several ongoing donations to Village Reach, Against Malaria Foundation and so on. The inhuman aspect of course is that your relationship has collapsed to a shadow of what it could be as a result of help consciously withheld. He was within your reach and you let go.
The difficulty with DeYoung and Gilberts’ presentation of the proximity principle, however, is that it fails to address the situation in which I have a full time job with money to spare after necessities, and my spare financial resources could not meaningfully improve the lives of anyone I know. In this situation I believe that a second filter must be applied. However, instead of adding this nuance, the authors run the risk of simply stating that no matter what your situation, those in third world countries cannot impose a moral obligation on you simply because they are far away, geographically and relationally. You don’t know them personally and will not meet them on the street. If I were to choose between helping my brother in a time of genuine financial need and helping those in third world countries, I would choose my brother. However, in times with no such genuine need in your family or community, what do you do?
It's possible that this situation is very rare. Perhaps I just exist in a prosperous bubble with my friends and family, and we are all sufficiently and unusually insulated from financial hardship. However I would imagine that many reading this are in the same boat (cruise liner?) Many countries in the world have welfare systems which exist as very robust safety nets. We tend to be stratified by class because information about how to lead a successful financial life is passed down from generation to generation. In such a middle class environment, money will create many more problems than it solves – consumerism deadens the soul rather than uplifting it, and excessive financial support in this luxurious environment can be a highway to the ever-present danger of dependency and laziness. Thinking about whether my money transferred or used in bulk would genuinely improve the lives of my friends and family I have concluded that they don’t need or want it or the things I could buy with it. While gifts can be a beautiful thing this beauty is usually expressed in a simple and relatively inexpensive way. In this environment the question remains – what do I do with my money? I think in this situation a utilitarian filter is a necessary extra layer.
I would highly recommend “What is the mission of the church?” That being said, however, an unusually fallacious argument introduced here by Gilbert and DeYoung must also be addressed. They correctly argue that there is no moral obligation to financially address all of the world’s concerns. However, they seem to equate that with the idea that there is no moral obligation to address any, only a general encouragement to do so. I would instead argue that if were are presented with a lack of proximate financial need (in our families, friendships and communities) then we have an obligation to seriously consider international aid or development or charity to those who are in desperate need. Peter Singer’s drowning child analogy (worth researching) is misrepresented by DeYoung and Gilbert in a couple of throwaway lines, but I have not as yet read inside or outside of the book a compelling case for dismissing it. We have the responsibility to choose our filters and think seriously about an area in which our financial resources can do good. Choosing those filters is a notoriously difficult task because of the number of counterproductive charities and initiaitives. However, there are areas in which we can unambiguously help people. One such area which I will probably mention often in the future is treating cases of preventable blindness, because of the variety and depth of dimensions of someone’s life that it improves, greatly overshadowing any potential negative economic consequences.
To recap, the principle of moral proximity is a beautiful and human concept that prevents us from coldly running the numbers and alienating friends and family as a result. Despite this, many of us live in communities without pressing financial needs. In such cases, I believe it is unjustifiable to shut out the wall of noise from desperate people around the world completely. Instead, we should in keeping with our human limitations and smallness choose a few voices and give them our attention and financial help.
