Okay, so saving a life is more important than retaining your nice set of cloths and that 10 minutes. Why do we not give that same amount of money to prevent a child in Africa from starving to death? It seems that the inconveniences that we once mocked as uncaring and selfish we now cling to in our defense; we'd rather spend that money on slightly better meals, morning coffee, and a shiny new pair of shoes than the starving kid. Point granted: we really ought to care about the affairs of others, even those in foreign countries, more than we do instead of spending all of our resources on many of our own concerns which are in comparison trivial.
However, one assumption that's implicit in the comparison is that you know for sure that your ten dollars is gonna save the starving kid. Quite likely, a good portion of that is going to be consumed by overhead transaction costs and corruption. You don't know for sure that your money is going to save the kid, and so that uncertainty does play a role. It doesn't justify giving no money at all, but it does explain why you'd be more obligated to give money to save a starving child in front of you over a starving child a thousand miles away.
I think this idea of proximity is in part why Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself," rather than a simple "love everybody as yourself." It's more concrete, and it's more sure. While we do have obligation to the starving child far away from us in Africa, our obligation is first and foremost to the starving children next to us. Most likely the people around us aren't starving; but they have real needs which we should be trying to meet.
This is in part how I deal with prioritization and how I choose what to do when there's many pressing obligations and things that would be good to do. The needs that are immediatly presented to me take priority; the people in front of me take priority. True, if this idea is taken to the extreme then it provides justification for neglecting people who ought not to be simply because we might think that we can't do anything or we don't know enough; and that self-justification of "it's okay not to care about this person because he's in the wrong category" is specifically addressed in the preceding story of the Good Samaritan. But, in summary, I think that decreased proximity increases responsibility.
Anyway. I should be studying more for the lsat. But it's far away =)
2 comments:
proximity=natural way of caring;
decreased proximity=supernatural way of caring.
In other words, natural way of caring is actually "fallen nature" way of caring, in oppose to
supernatural way of caring, which cannot be manufactured; it must come from within. It is a kind of gift, a kind of love that is supernaturally empowered. All regenerated Christians more or less has this kind of caring or love for those who are in the "decreased proximity" category, but in different degree, pending on how determined one is in living a daily sanctifying life, or how strong desire one has to have intimate relationship with our Sheperd :-)
well, proximity can also be understood not only in a geographical sense, but in terms of ability. you're just more able to help someone who tripped and fell right in front of you than your friend who tripped and fell a few cities a way. knowledge also plays a role; with what's going on in front of you, you have immediate data input, and it is a Biblical idea that you are responsible for what you know.
of course, taking into consideration the effects of geographical proximity on knowledge and ability, we still are obligated to care for those far away from us. granted. but if you're going to say proximity has nothing to do with proper, Christian care for others, i think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a defense against the drowning-baby-in-a-lake scenario given in the beginning of my post.
Post a Comment