Entry 2110, on 2021-02-26 at 16:20:00 (Rating 2, Philosophy)
And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Like a lot of figures of speech in English, the idea of "my brother's keeper" comes from the Bible, in this case Genesis. In the Bible story Cain has just murdered his brother, Abel, after he became jealous because God favoured Cain's (a shepherd) offering of meat over Abel's (a gardener) of fruit or vegetables. At least, that's my interpretation of the story, but it doesn't really matter how accurate my recollection is because the modern metaphorical use has a slightly different vibe to it.
Today we think of the phrase as being more related to how much support we owe other people, rather than the Biblical sense where Cain was just trying to hide his sin from God (did he really think he would get away with that?) and was asking in a more literal sense whether he should know of his brother's whereabouts.
As you might have guessed by now, Biblical exegesis is not the major reason for this post. What I actually want to examine is how much responsibility we should have for our fellow humans. In other words, should we be "our brother's keepers"? Naturally, this extends to our sister as well, and anyone who doesn't see themselves as either. But hey, the Bible isn't exactly known for its gender inclusivity.
A friend who I have been debating on various topics recently has suggested that we need to be more responsible and supportive of each other. Maybe he is channeling our prime minister who often entreats us to be "kind", but I give him more credit than that!
I think this concept represents a major division between different ways of thinking about modern life. At the extremes there are people who see the wellbeing of society as being the ultimate goal we should have, and that the individual is of secondary importance. And at the other are those who think the individual is of prime importance and that society is just a construct which should be minimised to allow the individual to prosper.
Naturally, most people aren't at either extreme, but my friend is probably more at the societal end of the spectrum, and I am closer to the individual end.
Humans are a social species, and by nature we cooperate with others and appreciate them as other conscious entities with equal status to ourselves. The evolutionary origin of empathy is no real mystery: living in groups doesn't work without cooperation. But there are exceptions, obviously. We are suspicious of others outside of our immediate group, and there are occasional examples of individuals without a well developed sense of empathy; some to the point of being sociopathic.
So helping others just makes sense, because it's the sensible thing to do, even if we might want to reject any notions of moral responsibility. Being "our brother's keeper" helps our brothers, but also ourselves, because it makes our society more functional. In this sense, wanting to help others is just another manifestation of wanting to help ourselves.
I guess that does lessen the intrinsic value of empathy, but there is no point in trying to pretend that it comes from a God-given quality, or that it results from an absolute moral right (in the sense of something that is just inherently the right thing to do). So let's just thank social evolution for giving most humans this positive attribute.
So being our brother's keeper is not really a matter that is up for debate; it is just something that is an unavoidable part of being human, except for that small proportion of people who are sociopaths, of course.
The real question is this: to what extent should I be my brother's keeper? Changing the question from requiring a simple binary response of yes or no, to one with more nuance asking for what effectively is a quantitative answer is not unique to this issue, of course, and I have mentioned this in previous blog posts.
Here's an example: my friend thinks we should have free health care. Here in new Zealand we already have a version of free health care, but it doesn't cover every possible medical issue, it doesn't provide every drug for free, and it often involves long waiting times for treatment. Clearly, this is not the type of "free health care" he was thinking of, or he would not have suggested the idea is necessary.
But what is he wanting? Should every condition be treated without question? Should every drug be free? Should there be zero waiting times? Even if we wanted to do that, would it even be possible? And if it was possible, what would it cost?
Clearly the demand for "free health care" is far too imprecise to be easy to either support or reject. This makes it difficult to comment on fairly. A similar objection applies to all demands for "free stuff".
I believe in equality, not equity, so I accept that there will always be some people with more than others. The problem is (and here's that theme again) how much more should some people have than others. I think we, as a society, should decide on a differential and build mechanisms to make that work. For example, we might decide that the CEO or a large company, or a president, or a senior scientist is worth ten times as much as an unemployed person, and adjust taxes to suit. We might need "negative taxes" to achieve this.
if we do that we won't need anything for free because everyone will have enough to live. OK, I know that doesn't necessarily follow from what I said above; for example the rich person might make $500K per year and the poor person $50K, but good healthcare might cost $100K. But greater income equality would be a good step towards fair access for all.
The advantage of my system - that is making sure everyone has a fair income - is that we wouldn't need to make anything free, because everyone would have enough to afford the basics.
There are two major problems with giving stuff away for free: First, where does it end? Today we want free healthcare, tomorrow free education, after that free accommodation. Once we start down the slippery slope it might never end. Second, there are always unintended consequences to any intervention of this type. For example, as people get more money to spend on health, medical institutions know they can charge more and prices go up, so the people need even more, and a positive feedback is set up.
I agree, something needs to change. But am I my brother's keeper? Well, to an extent I am, but in the end a society where I don't need to be would be a better solution.
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2021-03-02 at 15:59:11:
I'm sorry, but isn't your negative tax just free money?
Comment 2 by OJB on 2021-03-02 at 21:44:37:
Yes, it is. But it replaces all the complex and bureaucratic free money hand-outs we have now. There might be a way to avoid free money completely, but it would be much harder.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE