I will begin with the obvious: charity is good and those who help others from the goodness of their hearts are good people. But behind the light of charity lies a terrible darkness. This darkness remains unseen, for attention is focused on the light.
The media pushes stories of charity and it is right to praise the charitable. While presented as feel-good stories, there is often a horror behind them that can be revealed with a little reflection. For example, considerthe popular stories of school employees donating their sick days to a colleague being treated for cancer. These co-workers should be lauded for their sacrificing. This is the light of the story. But a little thought reveals the darkness behind the light: the sick person needs charity because they do not have enough sick days to cover their serious illness. They, it could be argued, should not need charity because they should have adequate sick days to cover their illness. It could be objected that such serious illnesses are unusual and that everything worked out because other people gave up their sick days.
While it is true that serious illnesses are uncommon, they do occur, and a good sick leave system would take that into account. As for others donating sick days, this is a problem because they are putting themselves at risk should they need those days. Also, a sick leave system should not depend on a person’s luck or ability to get sympathy. As such, while these stories tell us about good people doing good, they also show that there is something wrong with sick leave. If these were rare cases involving “slackers”, then that would be one thing. But these involve people who are working hard.
Continuing with another medical example, GoFundMe is regularly used to pay medical expenses. This practice is now so common that the site has its own guide to the process. Giving to such fundraisers is kind and stories about success make for feel good stories. I have given to several of them, sometimes for friends who have exhausted their insurance and savings and sometimes for strangers whose stories came to my attention. For example, I’ve seen signs posted at businesses asking people to help a sick employee.
While stories of successful fundraisers focus on the light, they usually fail to mention the darkness. One obvious problem is that even people who have insurance, who have worked hard and who have done everything right (such as a person I went to school with) can end up with crushing medical debt. That they need to turn to public fundraising is a harsh condemnation of the system. A second problem is that while news stories focus on successes, not all fundraisers succeed. That the ability to pay for medical expenses can depend on social media savvy and the appeal of one’s story is arbitrary and unfair.
It could be objected that only “slackers” and bad planners need to turn to GoFundMe, that they are exploiting the gullible compassionate. Some people are running scams, and some people get into medical debt because of poor life choices. However, people who have worked hard, who got insurance, and who made good decisions can end up needing to ask strangers for assistance, because people created and are maintaining a brutal, predatory system. What is needed is something that both Democrats and Republicans have called for, a better healthcare system.
Moving away from medical charity, one might think that post-disaster charity has no dark side. After all, people who have suffered due to a fire, a hurricane or flooding are not the victims of a human-designed system. While they are the victims of natural disasters, some of these have been made worse by climate change and humans are responsible for that. There is also the fact that, as with medical expenses, people lack the resources to address natural disasters even if they have insurance, have worked hard and have done everything right. One reason for this is that wealth is concentrated, and most people lack the resources to deal with disasters. The state (people acting collectively) does help, but it also has limited resources to address disasters, and the push is to cut these resources. This is due to spending choices and decisions about revenue. As such, people are ever more dependent on the aid of others to deal with disasters. Once again, those best at social media appeals do best, while others fare less well. Better solutions would include addressing the causes of disasters and having more public resources available to deal with them. But the Trump administration is pushing to the opposite.
For there to be charity, there must be those who suffer and lack the resources to assuage their own suffering. Why people lack these resources is worrisome. The dark side of charity is the dark side of our civilization: a system designed to concentrate wealth means most lack resources to address medical and natural disasters. There are also people who are so lacking in resources that every day is a disaster. Hence, they must rely on appealing to others.
It could and has been argued that this system is good that having a hyper-concentration of wealth and resources is somehow better for everyone. This is obviously untrue as it is not better for those who must rely on charity even when they have done everything they were supposed to do.
While some might be tempted to make a straw man my view and insist that I want to take all the money from the rich and distribute it among the poor, this is not true. Rather, what I advocate is modest, that there should be real effort to adjust the system so more can have adequate resources and that dealing with such things as medical problems does not require begging for money or pleading for donated sick days.