Charity for poverty alleviation is like trying to look closing your eyes. However, as listed by Justanotherchildofgod here, there is a lot of scope for an individual if s/he really wants to help others. Orphans, women, and elderly citizens seem to fall under this category. I will address here the active choices in front of an individual, and attitude choices.
First the attitude choices; the problems of orphans and women are intimately connected. Along with financial distress, pre-marital/extra-marital/rape-related pregnancies are other major causes of orphaning children (and abortions). The woman is a victim in a rape and pre-marital/extra-marital affairs are personal issues. I won’t discuss ethics here. However, when a woman is afraid of the repercussions for being pregnant, for whatever reason, and if you are a person who thinks that she must be condemned, it is worth remembering that you are causing some abortions and orphaning of kids, and probably quite a few suicides.
Women’s issues directly boil down to the issue of lack of training for economic activities. There is still a significant population who think that a woman’s place is at home; her duties are home and kids. If the marriage fails/terminates, how will she survive? If you think she is somebody’s responsibility, why should she be a dependent? Why wasn’t she trained to be independent in the first place? If you think a woman’s place is home, don’t forget that when/if a grand daughter finds herself at the mercy of the society, and some of its men who take “extra” interest in “helping” such helpless women, your choice of a nice “homely” wife for your son, or the extra protection you provided to your wife/daughter by asking them to stick to home for their “own protection” played a big role.
Elderly citizens end up needing charity, obviously, due to financial reasons. Around me, I rarely saw a single family go through a marriage without huge borrowings, and a lot of other stuff just to protect their “respect and dignity” in the society. Unaffordable amounts are spent on own houses and tours. People find it insulting to admit they cannot afford a kids’ higher education, or if their kid wants to work his way through college or if their women have to go to work. They would rather borrow huge amounts than go through the “insulting ordeals” which irreparably harm their “honor”. If your honor is more important than finances, it is no surprise if you find yourself at an old age home a few decades later.
Now, the active choices; if you can afford two kids you can discuss with your partner and adopt the second kid. If you think it is difficult to accept another’s kid, you can sponsor some kids; this is very cheap if you have a good job. Similarly, you can sponsor a woman’s education. Blind charity only postpones a lot of problems. Concentrated charity helps solving some. And money is not wasted. The only group where blind charity makes economic sense is for elderly people as it is not reasonable to expect economic activity here. For these reasons, given limited resources, I personally think the order of preference should be kids, women, and elderly to have a knock on effect to solve the problems faster.
Further, I help because I am pained by seeing suffering; so if my attempts cause me pain, I am being contradictory. Thus I help only if my losses are small and others’ gains are big. I think this helps to focus on the problem, rather than irrelevancies like fame or gratitude.
Free Hit Counter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure: I and my wife agreed in principle (before marriage) to adopt our second kid, subject to financial considerations, who would be of the opposite sex of our first born. I wish to acknowledge JustAnotherChildOfGod whose post spurred me to write these thoughts. More than that I, probably, wish she finds a way to cut the length of her rediffiland name :-)
