1.5.10.7 Positive Obligations

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

It is one thing for society to initiate interventions to minimize harm, for government agencies to address crime and for civil society to address inappropriate behaviour that is not criminal. 

It is also appropriate for society to assign responsibility when an action by an individual is an effective intervention that will promote happiness and well-being.  Given that we do not want governments interfering in too many areas of our lives (because in the long run that becomes inhibiting and causes psychological harm and perhaps even political oppression) it is reasonable to expect a high level of confidence that such a positive intervention is actually effective. 

For government agencies such positive interventions are useful to promote conflict free, efficient social interactions, to maintain public health and minimize trauma.  Governments bear Responsibility to do these things.  This is often expressed as ‘a duty of care’.  for Common examples include:

●   rules to ensure cars drive on the correct side of the road, don't speed, and to wear safety belts;

●   rules to minimize work place injuries and maximize safety and personal dignity at work;

●   rules about waste and pollution, to keep local areas clean and the globe inhabitable.

For individuals such positive interventions apply to personal behaviour, dealing with friends, family, colleagues, strangers and all manner of civic institutions.  We are all obliged to behave with Responsibility by ‘doing our bit’ to facilitate maintaining and improving a sane, stable, supportive, society.  Common examples include:

●   being courteous to the other people we have to interact with;

●   helping people when we can; donating to charities what we are able to afford;

●   being aware of what is going on in society: deliberate ignorance is irresponsible.

●   having some involvement in civil society: volunteering, voting at elections.

In one sense, it seems reasonable to distinguish between negative actions – thou shalt not – and positive actions – please help.  But the difference is really an illusion.

●   The Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all have rules that are frequently stated in the negative, most famously the Ten Commandments, most of which commence with thou shalt not.  (Honour thy father and thy mother is an exception.)  Most of criminal law, in all countries, relates to things we should NOT do. 

●   On the other hand, religions often do state rules more positively.  The Bhagavad Gita’s central message is to do your duty – without any attachment to the outcomes.  The Eightfold Path in Buddhism consist of Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration.  The Five Pillars of Islam are presented as 5 positive obligations: Express the faith (in God and Mohammed), pray 5 times a day, give alms (to charity), fast in the month of Ramadan, make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once, if you can manage it.

●   Professional ethics are often presented as positive actions or obligations: act prudently, declare conflicts of interest, establish complaint procedures, and so on, but some are also negative, like the Hippocratic Oath that medical doctors are presumed to follow, which begins First, Do no harm.

●   Too many people think donating to charity, to help the poor and needy, is discretionary, perhaps a good thing to do but not compulsory.  Some people think paying legally due taxes fulfills their moral obligations, in the belief that some of the taxes are redistributed to the poor – although this is not always the case, and anyway area government taxes don't help the needy outside the area.

A failure to contribute to helping the poor and needy (above the legal minimum) actually causes harm.

The potential end-recipient of your aid doesn’t receive the expected benefits so their harm or suffering is not reduced, and their happiness or well-being not increased.  

●   If we value Love, we want the opposite: to minimize harm and suffering and promote happiness and well-being. 

●   If we value Life we join with others in the struggle to live, and to some extent share their burden.  

●   If we value Equality we accept that everyone’s interests should be taken into account when we make ethical choices, including the interests of strangers even if they are discounted. 

●   If we value Responsibility we accept that we should be motivated, by self-imposed or socially-imposed interventions to make the appropriate choices.

The positive actions, which we conclude here really are obligatory rather than discretionary, range from common courtesies that make ordinary social interactions easier to substantial philanthropy. 

●   Common courtesies include holding doors for others (when it flows), being polite, not yelling or swearing, avoiding being impatient, saying please and thank you.  These require almost no effort, yet they make our interactions with people so much more pleasant – boosting happiness and well-being.  Most people in modern societies are forced into numerous interactions with strangers every day; comparatively few are isolated or hermits.  The many small improvements make a big difference.

●   More sophisticated social facilitation occurs if we can consider things from the other persons perspective, anticipate their needs, respond to their apparent confusion, and so on.  This doesn’t require extra physical effort, but it does require some active thought, but the payoff in smoother relationships is even greater.

●   Donating occasionally to charities is good.  Donating regularly is better.  Committing to donate a significant proportion of your income to charity (gross or net income after taxes etc) is best: standard proportions are one fortieth (2½ %) for the poor; a tenth (10%) for the more affluent; a third (33%) for the wealthy.  In Islam almsgiving, zakat, is obligatory for those above a certain minimum of wealth and the rate is 2½ % of your wealth (not income).  The Book of Malachi, in the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament) declares that a tithe is payable each year, a tenth of your income (tithe means tenth).

●   Giving of your time – volunteering – is also good.  Volunteering in your children’s sports club is partially self-interested, but also benefits the other kids involved.  Volunteering in an organization that helps strangers is even more laudable.  People who have little money but some spare time can contribute by volunteering rather than donating cash or goods.

We should be a little wary of who we donate to and who we volunteer with. 

●   Some organizations pretend to be charities but actually are businesses making a profit. 

●   Fund raising companies may conduct campaigns on behalf of worthy charities, but take up to 50% or more of the donations to cover their own expenses and profits: it is better to donate directly.

●   Some charities are legally set up to be charities but are run by crooks who take all the profits.

●   Some charities are inefficient, spending money on staff salaries, advertising, local managers, and so on, so that only a small proportion of the donation goes to the people they supposedly serve.

On the other hand, many charities, especially larger, international charities such as Oxfam, World Vision, and Red Cross are well run, transparent (with published accounts), efficient and effective, with about 10% of their funds going on administration and the rest on direct service delivery.

A small amount can go a long way when we are helping the very poor.

●   Givewell, an independent charity evaluator, estimates the cost of saving a child’s life is just $2,000 if you donate to the Malaria Consortium, a charity which distributes preventive anti-malarial drugs to children in Asia and Africa. (see https://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes-further-overseas).  Even if they wasted half their income, a child’s life still costs only $4,000.  A bunch of mates could get together and donate enough in total to save A CHILD, EVERY YEAR.

●   The Fred Hollows Foundation says you could provide sight saving surgery to a person who would otherwise go blind for just $25 (see https://www.hollows.org/au/restore-sight-monthly ).

Major benefits can also be obtained simply by reducing waste. 

●   For a family or a business this is often simply cost-effective: it saves money. 

●   Reducing the consumption of physical resources saves money that can be better spent elsewhere, and reduces the pollution caused in the extraction, use and disposal of those resources.

●   Reducing our energy consumption, in industry, transport, commerce and homes will reduce greenhouse gases and slow the rate of climate change.

●   Reducing our social footprint, the amount of land humans use, to the most efficient level (consistent with our core values) helps to preserve the environment for all living species.

We summarize our conclusion in this are as follows: