July 26, 2007
View Comments | Post CommentGod Bless You
A study has found that people are more generous and cooperative when they are primed with religious concepts first.
This comes as no surprise, since religion and a belief in the watchful eye of God serve, respectively, as an ethical foundation and its police force. But I'm uncomfortable with the course of action this dictates for individuals in society; if people are more cooperative and generous when you make meaningless religious blusterings at them beforehand, anyone seeking to solicit money or obtain cooperation should always induce religious thoughts in their victims before asking. Indeed, people have long figured this out. It's why the bum on the corner and the bell-ringing Santa in front of Wal-Mart say, "God Bless You," before they hit you up for cash, and then re-iterate after you've coughed up.
They wish God's blessing on someone without, first, finding out whether he or she believes in such a God, and second, whether he or she wants his blessing. To me, that is extremely offensive. It's just as offensive as assuming all black people are lazy thieves, or that all gay people sing showtunes while crossdressing. I know they mean well, but if I mean well in trying to give a black person fried chicken that I think they'll like, that doesn't make it any better. I don't see why I should be lumped into the group of people who believe in the benevolent supernatural, a classification I find extremely insulting.
So, here is my panhandler policy: If I have change (metal money), I will always give it to anyone who asks. If I don't have change, I only occasionally give dollar bills. I never give more than dollar bills. But, I absolutely never give anything to anyone who mentions God, Jesus, or any other religion or religious figures. If they tell me they hope I'm having a blessed day, and could I spare any change, I refuse. If they have a sign with a heartbreaking story, and then "God Bless You" at the bottom, I refuse. But if they merely stand there with an outstretched hand, and avoid mentioning religion, I will always give them whatever I've got.
Here is my justification: I do not have unlimited funds, and the amount I'm willing to give away is relatively small. Nevertheless, I want very much to help people when I can, to the extent that it isn't a significant harm to me (and sometimes even when it is a harm to me, and I obviously categorize those on a case by case basis). Nevertheless, I have a strong interest in ridding society of its despicable tendency to impose religious imagery and values on those who don't want them. My withholding of money is therefore intended to influence society in the direction I want it to go. However, feeble, I'm engaging in activism. In a sense, I'm voting against stereotyping, and the imposition of religion, with my wallet. But reading this article reminded me of how deeply ingrained this practice is, and I've decided that, in the future, if I deny charity for the reasons above and I have time to stop and explain, I need to do so, or else I'm not doing any good--I'm acting solely out of spite rather than out of a genuine desire to improve the world. And I'm not okay with that. But I am okay with withholding change in order to cause change.
Here is my question: Is my justification convincing? Why, or why not?
Posted at July 26, 2007 4:15 PM | Comments (5)
Comments
Post a new comment
While it may be helpful in advancing your change strategy, I don't think it's necessary at all for you to explain what you're doing. You're essentially being an active player in what Hayek called "experiments in living" in which different people try the strategies that make the most sense for them, and the market forces them to adapt. It doesn't matter what your motives are; if enough people deny enough money to enough people based on their religious expression, the pattern will become obvious and the homeless (and possibly eventually society) will figure it out.
Now, the bigger problem comes a la rational choice theory -- your sole monetary "vote" isn't nearly enough to affect the outcome. You don't need to be telling the homeless about your strategy, but you DO need to tell people you know (perhaps via a blog?) so you can build up enough of a groundswell to make a difference.
On a related note, I was in a debate with some libertarians recently about giving money to the homeless. The argument was about whether it was helpful to use the strategy of refusing to give money, but offering to buy them a sandwich at the nearest restaurant, on the grounds that it weeds out the people who use the money to feed an addiction. Some libertarians said great because you're using the money to YOUR self interest (not giving money to people who won't use it for food) but others said you're really using the money to increase happiness and happiness results from whatever the person's preferences happen to be. I still haven't taken a side, so I go with the path of greatest convenience to me: just the change, or nothing at all.
And by the way, I don't have a strategy where I reward non-religious behavior, but I do employ a strategy where I reward really good stories. And I do incentivize future behavior by saying something like "look man, your story is a total crock of shit, but it was so funny I'm giving you the money anyway."
Posted by: Chad at July 27, 2007 9:27 AM
I agree that, in terms of the economic market, I shouldn't have to say why I'm doing it. But maybe I'm hoping that, since I'm giving them a reason other than "I don't have any change," which is the only one they usually hear, they'll more quickly adapt. Maybe I even hope they'll make a choice that would not be rational [anywhere but San Francisco].
And yes, I do sometimes reward other entertaining behavior by giving larger amounts, perhaps a dollar or two.
Posted by: Barzelay at July 27, 2007 11:57 AM
I also dislike religious references when people are asking for money. At least in the form of "god bless you" and whatnot. However, if someone prefaces their request with, "are you a Christian?" I'm more likely to say no and then give them a ridiculously huge amount of money, in an effort to show people that you don't have to be Christian in order to not be an asshole. However, in your model all this would accomplish is encouraging people to specifically ask, "Are you a Christian?" because it would make Christians more likely to donate money and certainly doesn't hurt them when they ask people like me.
I like your idea of telling people specifically why you choose not to give them money.
Posted by: lsmsrbls at July 27, 2007 1:25 PM
I don't mind being asked whether I'm a Christian. At least then they accurately can judge the charity of Christians versus non-Christians. In fact, I'd be extremely curious about whether, in a particular location, Christians tend to give more to the homeless than non-Christians. I'd love to see a comparison of all religious groups' charity. Not to non-profit orgs, but to people on the streets.
Posted by: Barzelay at August 1, 2007 1:27 PM
Being asked whether or not I'm a Christian makes me uncomfortable. It shouldn't, but I can't help it. I don't like giving "wrong" answers. People used to ask me when I was waiting tables, and I'd lie. I can't help it--I'm weak. That and I have no moral compass because of my lack of religion. Of course, when you're busy it's not exactly the best time to get into a situation where someone will want to witness to you. Particularly when they will decide whether or not you have enough money to pay your bills. So I guess I'm kinda a whore, too. A lying whore. God, the depravity.
I'd like to see that sort of comparison, too. It's somewhat like that study that compared whether or not people would help a homeless man when they were late for an ethics test. And it compared people who had just discussed the Good Samaritan story to those who hadn't...or something to that effect.
Posted by: lsmsrbls at August 7, 2007 2:42 PM
