The Ethicist: Not so ethical
Randy Cohen writes The Ethicist, a NY Times Magazine column about doing the right thing when the right thing is not so clear. I started reading The Ethicist during long afternoons at Cafe Pap — once Kampala’s only free internet cafe (they have now started charging) — where it granted me momentary but wonderful pleasures: Cohen helped me remember what it was like to have manners and righteousness and, most importantly, clean fingernails — things which, like water and sunglasses, hold unreasonable value in Africa.
Cohen now writes The Moral of the Story, a blog on the NY Times website. In his first post, Cohen tackles Madonna’s recent attempt to adopt an African child. Sadly, Cohen is just flat out wrong here.
But as far as helping children, adoptive parents might do so more effectively simply by donating money (as Madonna has also done in Malawi). A fraction of the typical $20,000 spent on an adoption or the $250,000 it takes to raise a middle-class American child could assist a great many African kids. But the ethical obligation to help suffering children does not apply only to those who wish to adopt; it is a general duty we all share.
Cohen, shame on you. Yes, you can indeed donate money, but the majority of donated funds never reach those who need it, especially in Africa (ahem, corruption). And yes, while $20,000 seems like it could help lots of kids, that does not mean it will be well-spent; for instance, let’s say you want to use the $20k to buy 20 metric tons of porridge, so hungry children can eat. Well, you need transportation and storage and administration and cooking fuel and plates (or cups) and labor and, perhaps, licenses (because you can’t just start feeding kids without some kind of approval) — all of which might cost, say, $20,000. Moreover, once the food is gone, who will provide the next shipment? (In effect, you are creating dependence and disenfranchising the disadvantaged as they — and their leaders — look to you for their future survival.) So, while I do understand the overarching argument of having an obligation to aid suffering children, I think Cohen is incorrect in suggesting throwing money at the problem, to help many children, is more effective than committing to the well-being of a single child via adoption. What Cohen is advocating, in essence, is that we fulfill our obligation by causing harm.
I say this for two reasons. The first is that when we donate money to Africa, for whatever cause, it is generally conditional. That means the receiving government must fulfill some kind of obligation in return for the funds (e.g., meeting poverty-reduction goals or improved governance and accountability). While this has the veneer of righteousness, what it does in the background is undermine the democratic process. It should be the ruling government, expressing the people’s wishes, that decides what goals should be met or what things should be done within their country. This is the right of every voting citizen and, I believe, it is neither appropriate nor correct to assume that, because we are blessed with money and they are not, we can dictate terms with more weight than the indigenous voter.
The second reason is that adoption vs. institutionalization must be considered. Research shows that nurturing (via adoption) results in overall higher IQ levels than institutionalization. In addition, in this particular context, Madonna could have afforded the child a stellar education and diverse opportunities. Is it possible, then, that one Madonna-orphan could have a greater impact on humanity than 200 orphans in Malawi? This, too, must be calculated and weighed — and this careful deliberation of (hidden) issues is what I think Cohen needs to think about before committing to any particular remedy.
As The Ethicist, he’s got that obligation.