A partial impartial defense of partiality. One of the premises of major moral theories is that actions should be impartial. I should not favour myself, my friends, my family, my gender my fellow nationals or indeed my fellow humans. There is no morally significant reason that could allow me, say, to torture a cow or a Frenchman but not a middle aged English woman. Nor is there a morally significant reason why I should give you, dear friend, £100 when I could use that money to create more good elsewhere. I must not prefer certain individuals or course of action for self-interested or relational reasons.
Now, say I had made you a promise to write you an email. In that case, I do need to send you an email, rather than send an email to someone else. I cannot say that I just felt like sending an email to Linda instead. I would need a very good reason to break my promise. In some schools of thought, there is no reason that could justify it. But say that at the very point when I could write an email (if there were a five minute slot of possibility) I saw a drowning child, then saving that child would take precedence. If in that slot I performed another important action like helping an old lady home with her shopping, then I would still owe you, I think, an apology as well as an explanation. But if I just opted to spend the time chatting to my father, I would have failed in my ethical duty.
Theories place a great deal of weight on impartiality and the burden is, perhaps, highest with utilitarianism. My mother died of cancer, so I donate money to Cancer Research. That is no good - I could maximise the good done by that money if I donated it to a malaria charity. It is irrelevant that I have a personal reason for preferring to donate money to Cancer Research.
But what I want to say is that when the footballer Marcus Rashford chose to devote his money and time to schoolchildren who needed free lunches. He donated some money himself and became involved in a campaign that raised £20m. He was then influential in leading to a government U-turn, so that free school vouchers would be distributed to children. He has continued to expand the effect and is now attempting to tackle child food poverty generally, which he says adds to social unrest.
Rashford was partial about this project because he had grown up in a low income household and his mother had struggled to cover the costs. He started helping children in Manchester - his home city and the base for his football club, Manchester United. This issue mattered to him and so he was inclined to act for the cause. But, if we were to translate this into money for saving lives, he did the wrong thing. He should have devoted the same energy and money to a malaria charity.
However, that does not seem right, does it?
It is not a morally relevant factor that he was 'inclined to act' in this cause. That does not confer 'rightness' to the cause. So we cannot justify his ethical standing on the basis of his preference or interest per se.
What I think we can do is this: we can perhaps make a case that because of his standing in that community, his involvement in the campaign could lead to him having a greater impact in the area. In addition, his personal story acted as a powerful additional persuader. Those hearing about his campaign were convinced of the integrity and authenticity of his concern and more likely to see him as a symbol for the cause. His partiality was a profound part of the force of the campaign. He would not have been as effective in raising money or interest in a malaria charity because those witnessing his actions would be less likely to 'buy in' to his reasons. Partiality added moral weight to the project.
Once his impact had been established and he had raised this large sum, he had generated a profile and a reputation that thus enabled him to make further inroads into wider and connected causes. They remain causes in which he has an interest - and that is important. Were he to say, 'Right, now I've done that, I recognise that the same money would have more impact if donated to a malaria charity' the momentum of this cause would be lost and he would lose the persuasive force that he has as a campaigner. On the other hand, if he were able to resolve child poverty in this country, and then expand his range of interest to embrace children in low income nations, he would carry with him the energy generated by that initial act of partiality.
In addition, he is acting as a powerful role model. As a famous footballer, with a very large following globally, Rashford's actions may well inspire people worldwide. He is also a young black man and, after a summer that has seen some racial tension, he is also playing a significant role in generating a positive public image of a group of people (young black males from low income areas) who suffer both implicit and explicit racism.
Rashford, from a starting point of partiality, is maximising good. He is also one of the few people who could achieve this much good in this area, thus he is also doing the best thing that he as an individual could do.
This might just be my essay idea for the first part of my course!
Commentaires