Justice

If I believe something is wrong, namely poverty and income inequality, then shouldn't I do as much as I can to make it right? So then my question becomes, what is the most effective way to help impoverished people? If I become completely devoted to ending poverty and spent all my time say working for a non-profit organization I believe I would be doing some good. However, if I become a successful businessperson then I could possibly be doing even more good by donating millions of dollars, although I would be more committed to business then fixing poverty at that point. How can I be sure what option will give me live the "good life"?

Comments

On your first question, in its general form: No, it is not the case that you should do as much as you can to make right what you believe is wrong. First, there are wrongs that you can make right only by committing serious wrongs of your own. Second, your resources (time, money, energy) are limited, and it is simply impossible for you to do as much as you can with regard to every wrong you perceive. (For example, doing all you can to make right a trivial wrong may prevent you from making right a much greater wrong.) Third, you are not morally required to do all you can to right the wrongs of the world you live in -- some wrongs are not your responsibility (e.g., a blatant injustice in the Danish tax code), and you are morally entitled to devote some of your resources to things other than the righting of wrongs. Fourth, you may not be sure that what you believe to be wrong is wrong, and you may then have reason not to act on your judgment. (For example, when many people whose judgment you respect do not share your belief, you may conclude that perhaps you should not act on it when doing so might also cause a lot of harm. The fact that opinions are very divided about abortion gives those who believe it permissible a reason not to have one and also gives those who believe abortion to be murder a reason not to use the kind of violence against abortion clinics that one might well use against extermination camps.)

On the more specific question, concerning poverty and income inequality, I share your belief that these are very great wrongs, especially when we are thinking about the world as a whole rather than merely our own country. We affluent have arranged this world so that the bottom half of humankind live in life-threatening poverty, on roughly 2% of global income, with one third of all deaths each year (ca. 18 million) due to entirely avoidable poverty-related causes. Yes, this sort of radical inequality is a very major wrong, and each of us ought to do quite a bit toward making it right.

What exactly to do depends on five sets of factors: Your talents and capabilities, your motivations and interests, your opportunities, your analysis of the poverty problem, and your assessment of what like-minded others are doing. Let me run through these in order.

Your talents and capabilities matter insofar as there may be effective contributions you are simply unable to make. You may not be able to become a successful business person, or an effective politician, or a good nurse or physician; and you may then have reason to contribute in some other way.

Your motivations and interests matter insofar as you will end up contributing much less if you find what you do revolting, boring, or even just unexciting. Ideally, you would find a contribution that really suits you and engages your whole being over long stretches of your life. Many careers have this potential -- writer, business person, politician, doctor, NGO worker, etc. But chances are that only a few of these careers have the potential of captivating you in this way. Still, one career is all you need. And it is quite likely that you can find one that is personally fulfilling and also enables you to do (with high and lasting motivation) a great deal of good. If you can achieve this happy combination, you're a long way toward what your final question is inquiring about: the good life.

Your opportunities matter insofar as they may give you a headstart in certain careers relative to others. For instance, if a rich uncle can set you up with an interesting business you'd be excited to run, then this may well tip the scales in favor of this career as against working for a non-profit organization or trying to work your way up in politics.

Your analysis of the poverty problem matters insofar as it affects what you see as the most promising contribution possibilities. Once you have a sense of what the key obstacles are that prevent the poor from working their way out of poverty, then you can intelligently focus your efforts at the removal of abstacles that you can remove most cost-effectively.

Your assessment of what like-minded others are doing matters insofar as you want to take advantage of coordination. Weak coordination is passive: you note that enough people are already involved in a certain effort and so you direct your energies somewhere else where too little effort is as yet applied. An even better way of "improving the mix" of efforts being made is through strong coordination, which is active: you get together with others and work together with them as a team -- perhaps within one non-profit or company or political party, or perhaps even across various such entities.

Read another response by Thomas Pogge

Read another response about Justice