• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Good Charity as Neither Tragedy nor Farce

    June 8th, 2013
    giving  [html]
    People keep linking to Zizek's talk on charity, First as Tragedy, then as Farce, to say we shouldn't donate. So what's his argument?

    In the first half of the talk he describes a "cultural capitalism" in which products you buy are supposed to also do some good in the world. He gives the examples of Starbucks and Tom's Shoes. He describes pretty well how it works, in negative terms, but doesn't actually give any arguments against it. That said, I do agree with him that "earn a lot, then give money away" does more to actually help people than "buy ethically, feel good that you are doing good".

    It's the second half of the talk, however, where he starts giving his main argument, which is that helping people is bad. The idea is that we need a better system, and that trying to make things better for people within the current system is actively harmful in that it weakens the forces pushing us towards a better one. As a historical example, he says that "the worst slaveholders were those that were kind to their slaves" because that delayed the elimination of slavery.

    While people who were repulsed by slavery had all sorts of examples of functioning non-slaveholding societies to emulate, it's not clear what we would replace capitalism with. Zizek acknowledges that 20th century communism was a "mega mega ethical, political, and economic catastrophe". So even if we let things get really bad, stopped all charity, maybe even did some intentional make-things-worse anticharity, I don't think that would lead us to something better. We'd just be letting more people suffer and die to no end.

    Even if a better system is coming, however, does effective charity really delay it? If people don't get malaria, have more money, or grow up with fewer parasites are they any less empowered or motivated to change their situation for the better? If they are, is this effect very large? Large enough that your donation does more through indirect effects to delay the implementation of a better system than it does by direct effects to make people's lives better?

    He argues against each major economic system, but just arguing that systems are bad isn't enough: we will have some system, and we need to pick among them. He gives no argument that we should do something other than stick to our current system, and he doesn't come anywhere near the question "if we want to make the world better, how should we go about it?".

    (I previously wrote something similar as a comment.)

    Comment via: google plus, facebook, r/smartgiving

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    Austerity is Inefficient

    Working on an emergency timetable for regional rail has made it clear how an environment of austerity requires tradeoffs that reduce efficiency. I already talked about how the Swiss electronics before concrete slogan is not about not spending money but ab…

    via Pedestrian Observations February 27, 2021

    Fireside Friday, February 26, 2021

    Fireside this week, but next week we are diving into our long awaited series on pre-modern textile production, though we will be particularly focused on the most important clothing fibers in the Mediterranean world, wool and linen (rather than, say, silk …

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry February 26, 2021

    The Troubling Ethics of Writing (A Speech from Ancient Sumer)

    (Translated from a transcript of an ancient Sumerian speech by Uruk's most well-respected Scriptological Ethicist) Writing is a profoundly dangerous technology: Access to writing was initially, and still remains, uneven. What's worse, the rich are m…

    via BLOG - Cullen O'Keefe February 15, 2021

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact