Compassion Or Envy?
This is a really provocative thought experiment from the rabidly right-wing, yet infuriatingly insightful, American pastor Doug Wilson. It bothered me, so now I’m posting it so it can bother you.
You have a button in front of you, placed there by a helpful genie. But instead of giving you the standard three wishes (and why doesn’t anybody ever wish for ten wishes?), the genie has limited your options.
If you push the button, the real income of all the “have-nots” in the world will double overnight. Their health care will be twice as good as it is now, their disposable income will be twice as large, their houses will be twice as nice, and so on. But another consequence of pushing this button will also be the fact that the “haves” will see their prosperity increase ten-fold. They will all be ten times richer, thus enabling them to swank around all day.
To spell it out, this means that the divide between the rich and poor will widen, but will do so in a way that leaves the poor undeniably better off.
This is your ethical “dilemma,” and part of your test is whether or not you even think of it as a dilemma. Would you refuse to push that button out of hard principle? Would you push it, but with a guilty conscience? Or would you, like me, push it while whistling a cheerful air, with your hat on the side of your head?
If you would not push it, or if you would push it reluctantly, then that urgent yearning for social justice that you feel all the time in your gut is not compassion at all, but cancerous envy. It is evil. It is a deadly sin that must be mortified. You don’t love the poor at all—you hate the rich, and you want to use the poor as a club. And why would this malevolent genie want to take your precious club away?
Hmmm. You can read the post here.
Comments
By Mick Taylor on 16/12/2011 at 09:30
A cleverly set up dilemma but it is not the way the world works. Money has value because of its purchasing power, if no more resources are available then the rich in this scenario have increased power to get what they want and though the poor might have more money in their accounts or more likely just in their pockets what they could do with it would in fact be reduced.
By Graham Clark on 16/12/2011 at 10:03
I think when your proposing a Genie with a magic button to create wealth that you can suspend an understanding of economics for the sake of the dilemma.
My first thought was also that by pressing the button you would actually make the poor poorer due to inflation but assuming the magic button works it way round economics I would push it without a doubt.
By Dan Watkins on 16/12/2011 at 10:42
This irks me for a number of reasons:
1. It’s a ridiculous straw man. While it’s not-so-subtly aimed at those who advocate the more liberal side of the spectrum, I don’t think there’s anyone who this really applies to. Of course there are mixed motives behind some lefties. But I don’t think anyone would actually argue as far as Wilson makes out, or take the stance he wants them to unproblematically.
2a. Mixed motives is not just a sin of the left. The critique is thus somewhat moot. It’s a facet of human nature that most of the good we do is mixed with pride or envy. It’s just as easy - and in fact, probably easier - to turn the critique on its head, and interrogate the motivations behind wanting to discredit those who “yearn” for social justice.
2b. A debatable one, but do motivations matter as much as the result? God explicitly demands justice and mercy of humans. I don’t recall anywhere in scripture where He tells people off for being merciful out of debatable motives. (This can probably be more easily shot down!)
3. As a thought experiment, neither option is morally satisfying, or leads to a good world. Both lead to the increase of sin - injustice in both, the explicit oppression of the poor in one hand, the unchecked pride of the rich in the other. There’s not much we actually can learn morally from this.
4. It leads one to conclude a wholly “equity” approach- i.e. that increasing the wealth of some isn’t enough, we need income equity as the proper solution for justice. And we do. But it sidelines the very good argument that, as well as equality of distribution, there is a strong moral argument for increasing the material conditions of the poor irrespective of problems of equity. (This is a bit of a weak crit, sorry)
5. It only addresses an impossible world economically. Practically, it doesn’t say anything to the options available to us as citizens.
6. It ignores the central problem by addressing a peripheral one. It appears as if it’s talking about justice, but it isn’t, it’s talking about motivations (or, the possible motivations of an improbable group, in an emotive and evocative way) and actually doesn’t say anything about justice, although its subtext implies that it is saying something about justice. If that makes sense. It’s not addressing the question it pretends to be addressing.
7. It does what so many Christians do in this age and overreads one verse (“The poor will always be with you” - the argument is effectively saying this, albeit in relative terms) in neglect of countless expressed visions of justice set out in law (Ex 23; Lev 19, 25; Deut 15), prophets (too many to state, try Micah!), Jesus himself, and a church which practiced things (Acts 2:45) that led to Karl Marx stealing from the Bible (“From each according to his ability…”)
8. Most controversial point of all - Christians, when they ignore this, fundamentally miss a trick. Not only is there Biblical instruction for justice but there is BLESSING associated with it (controversial question: Can you pursue justice in order to pursue the associated blessing as your main motivation, rather than justice as an ends in itself?). Just quickly:
a. Sabbath laws/jubilee laws: Deut 15 links keeping of covenant laws - as a preface to Sabbatical years - with blessing, provision, military peace, and sound macroeconomic stability.
b. Prophets: Isaiah 58: the famous one. Be just, get rid of oppression and slavery, share your food and shelter, leads to greater potency in witness.
9. Ignores that, more than a niche issue or a wider societal issue, agents of righteousness is who God has made us to be. I’ve been meditating on Isaiah 32 lately: “A king will reign in righteousness, and princes will rule in justice”. This is who we are, by definition. Fundamentally, articles like this which problematise that, cause either self-doubt or division, divert attention away from our calling as God’s people to a hypothetically impossible, morally unhelpful world where we are powerless to act in a way God has made us to act. As such, it’s not worth the paper it’s blogged on.
By Paul Billingham on 16/12/2011 at 11:14
I think that on balance you should push the button, because you will save many lives by doing so. (Although you probably wouldn’t save many lives in the example as Wilson sets it up, since doubling the wealth of people in absolute poverty still leaves them in absolute poverty. But the example could be amended to change this).
However, I totally reject the implication that hesitation about pushing the button, or a sense that doing so has negatives as well as positives, is merely envy and is sinful. The suggestion is that all concern for equality is envy. But there are lots of reasons we might have a concern for inequality other than envy.
To name a few:
First, there are concerns about relative wealth making a difference to what people can actually do with money, as Mick as mentioned.
Second, there are concerns about power inequalities being created by wealth inequalities.
Third, there are concerns about the psychological effects of the huge inequality on the poor.
Fourth, there is the sense of injustice that this inequality is totally undeserved/unmerited. It doesn’t track/reflect anything that we consider relevant to how income should be distributed. (What factors we should consider relevant is obviously a big debate).
...
By Paul Billingham on 16/12/2011 at 11:15
...
Fifth, it is possible to think there is something worse about situation 2 compared to situation 1 even though situation 2 is not worse for any individual in absolute terms. For example: in situation 1 a murderer is jailed for life and a saint has an ok life. In situation 2 the murderer goes free and has a happy life, and the saint has a slightly better life than he did in situation 1. Everyone is better off in situation 2, but we would still think there’s something wrong with it – justice is not done. And this is not envy – we don’t envy the murderer in situation 2, but we think he hasn’t received the punishment he deserves. Similarly, in Wilson’s scenario we can legitimately believe there’s something wrong with the massive inequality pressing the button creates, even though everyone is better off than if we didn’t press the button.
That’s probably enough! However, one final point: there is an absolutely huge literature within political theory which discusses these kind of questions (and using examples similar to Wilson’s), written by very clever people who spend their whole life thinking about these issues. Few of them would accept Wilson’s argument that it’s terrible to have any doubts about pressing the button. If theologians are going to think about these kind of issues well, then they would really benefit from looking at this literature. (I’m happy to suggest some things to read if people are interested!)
By Matthew Hosier on 16/12/2011 at 12:19
“if no more resources are available” also assumes a lot - the one thing the industrial age has consistently demonstrated is that resources are no more finite than travelling faster than the speed of a galloping horse will kill you!
I agree Wilson is infuriating, but he has written a brilliant obit for Christpher Hitchens. You can read it here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/decemberweb-only/christopher-hitchens-obituary.html
I love his conclusion: “Our intelligentsia needs to figure out how to do more than sit in an empty tub and reminisce about the days when Voltaire knew how to keep the water hot.”
By David on 16/12/2011 at 13:22
A few comments.
(1) I think the way to deal with both Mick’s and Graham’s comments is to make it explicit that the scenario involves increasing resources, not just printing money. And, @ Matthew and Dan point 5, I’m not sure it matters that the situation is rather far-fetched. The point is that what you say about these hypothetical scenarios reveals something of your values and / or motivations. Reflecting on such cases, however unlikely they are, can strip away the complications of the real world and enable us to reflect clearly on what matters. Of course, the complications of the real world are important when making decisions in the real world. But we also need to be clear on what to care about, and thought experiments like this one can help us get clear on that.
(2) So what is (Doug) Wilson’s conclusion, concerning what matters or otherwise? It’s not clear to me. Possibilities include: (a) Material equality is not a good in itself. (b) [Something else the left cares about, or everything it cares about economically] is not a good in itself. (c) Those who care about material equality, or about the something else, do so because of envy - and that’s sinful.
Of course, he might be arguing for all / some / none of these. I think the main conclusion is perhaps (c), but he’s also arguing for at least one of (a) and (b).
(3) The argument surely doesn’t establish (b), and I get the feeling that (b) is close to what Wilson wants to say. Suppose we agree that there’s reason to prefer the more equal situation. I think plenty of people on the left could agree with that, and instead hold that the poor should be given priority over the rich. That is, a small increase to the poor’s wealth should usually be preferred to a very large increase to the wealth of the rich. That could still lead to a lot of left-friendly, right-unfriendly redistribution. For explanation, see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/#5.2
(4) Paul has provided a good list of possible reasons to doubt (a). To expand on that: suppose you doubt that any points on his list are ultimately good reasons to think equality is good in itself. Still, they are reasons for which lots of people deny (a). And can Wilson seriously say envy is at the root of all those people’s views? I think not. So even if Paul’s list doesn’t establish that (a) is false, it surely is enough to reject (c).
Thanks for posting this, Andrew!
By David on 16/12/2011 at 13:27
Sorry, think I misinterpreted Mick (and by extension, perhaps Matthew too!). Mick’s point was about power, and the rich might gain more power from the situation even if it is material resources that are increased.
But I stand by the rest of my comment!
By Andrew Wilson on 16/12/2011 at 14:02
Great responses, y’all. Just beware of throwing the baby out with the bathwater ... I think motives are important, and I think Wilson has a point on that (albeit, as so often, rhetorically overstated).
By Phil Whittall on 16/12/2011 at 18:44
DW is clearly happy with massive social inequality and sees no problem with it, despite the well documented problems it causes. His economic blessing to the poor worsens the condition of society not improves it and in the real world actually makes the poor poorer. Poverty isn’t just absolute it’s relative.
The other reason to think carefully, is whether the outcome for the rich is also a ‘good’, Wilson casually assumes it is. Again evidence from the world’s richest would suggest otherwise.
Hardly a good reason to whistle cherrily with your hat at a jaunty angel.
By Chris on 17/12/2011 at 10:05
I too was infuriated by this article as wealth and poverty are defined in relative terms. So, as the question is stated, it looks like the poor become 5 times poorer.
On reflection I think Doug has in mind a middle class. This is not explicitly stated, but to my mind the question only works then. The other implicit assumption is that you are in that middle class. (We all like to associate ourselves as the have-nots, but most of us are not. This is the effect our consumer culture has on us)
In this way the dilemma is whether you help the poor, but also help the rich, and make yourselves relatively poorer in the process.
By Steve on 18/12/2011 at 23:22
It’s worth pointing out that, in addition to what’s been said by everybody else, if you’re aware of the evidence linking inequality with a whole host of social problems, then it would be sinful to push the button without feeling any sense of guilt. Which is pretty much the opposite to what Wilson’s trying to say.
By Matthew Hosier on 19/12/2011 at 21:10
@Phil “Poverty isn’t just absolute it’s relative.” This is such a slippery statement - relatively, to Bill Gates, I am a miserable pauper; objectively that is clearly not the case, as I have food, shelter and clothing.
A lot of the concerns about social inequality seem to actually reinforce DW’s point - if feeling poor (when objectively I am not) makes me miserable and apathetic then that is a heart problem for me, not a problem with the way resources are distributed. There may be problems with the way resources are distributed, but that is not the issue of concern in this scenario. So, I’m not sure it’s fair to state that DW is indifferent about social inequality - that’s not the point of the post; the point he is making is how subtly envy can set up an idol in our hearts. He’s making the same point that Keller does in ‘Counterfeit Gods’, but in polemical style - the style of someone who enjoyed crossing swords (& could hold his own) with C. Hitchens.
As Andrew says, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
By Phil Whittall on 19/12/2011 at 21:29
@Matt H sure with the issue of relative poverty it’s in the definition but the work of http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/ I think shows that it’s within the societies that counts. Were all the rioters of the summer poor in absolute terms? Hardly. Did many of them ‘feel’ poor and disenfranchised by that? Absolutely. Do people feel that something is wrong with society by what it pays bankers and cleaners? Yes.
Whether that’s right or fair is up for debate but what people sense as ‘gross’ inequality is a cause for concern. In what sense, yes that is a heart problem and obviously shows up the idols. But the solution Wilson proposes does not necessarily expose the heart problems in the one with the power to offer a solution.
I buy into the inequality arguments so I’d be unhappy to be called a ‘envious and sinful person who hates the rich’ by not pressing the button. Polemics aside of course.
I think the cure is no cure and therefore not worth pressing the button.
By Paul Billingham on 20/12/2011 at 09:42
@ Matt H: I agree that the baby should not be thrown out, and that there’s an important point to be made about envy becoming an idol.
However, DW directly states that anyone and everyone who hesitates at all about pushing the button does so only due to envy: “If you would not push it, or if you would push it reluctantly, then that urgent yearning for social justice that you feel all the time in your gut is not compassion at all, but cancerous envy.”
Heart issues matter. But DW is going beyond this in saying that everyone who has a concern for the inequality in his scenario is in the grip of a “deadly sin that needs to be mortified.” I assume he would therefore also say that anyone concerned about inequality for its own sake in the real world is in that same grip.
It is this accusation which I reject, since it seems to me that there are many reasons we might case about inequality which are not envy. I gave 5 of them above, and others have given more.
I accept that presenting an arguments polemically can be useful, but surely not when it means that you accuse every Christian who cares about inequality of being in the grip of a cancerous envy!
By Rory on 20/12/2011 at 12:45
In terms of economic equality, do people not towards Jesus’ words in Mark 4:25 (“Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.” NIV) and see Jesus cared far more about ‘virtue with’ rather than ‘possession of’ money? (Rich young man, Mark 10.)
Money is not the root of all evil, the LOVE of money that is!
If you do not love money, why not create a society were people are all richer and there is no poverty, even if it means creating a wider gap between rich and poor?
I’ve never seen an argument in the bible that people should be equal in terms of possessions - is there one?
By Andrew Wilson on 20/12/2011 at 19:03
It sounds like we need an article and a discussion on “what is poverty?” at some point, to pick up the crucial conversation Matt and Phil are having. And there was me thinking that the gender debate piece would be the last controversial one before Christmas ... ;0)
By John S. Holland on 27/01/2012 at 21:24
Obama pushed precisely that button with his two “Quantitative Easing” programs. CEOs promptly received bonuses of billions of dollars, much of which they donated to the Democratic Party; I received $8000 for purchasing a house after not having owned a house for over two years. I heard a lecture in which the speaker announced that in 1970 CEOs earned 34 times more than their factory workers; CEOs now earn over 600 times more than their workers. Pumping paper into the money supply must cause and in fact is causing the inflation which has already started. And this inflation will certainly hurt poorer people much more than it willl hurt those who are richer. I lived in Israel for 30 years, during a time in the 1980s when annual inflation reached about 1000%. Our salaries (mine included) increased monthly but did not keep pace with inflation. Whereas a friend of mine, a Messianic pastor who also runs a printing business, told me that he made a fortune during that epoch.