 |
|
DO WE “GIVE” OR DO WE “GIVE AWAY”? A CHALLENGE IN OUR WORLD TODAY
In our world, immersed in materialism, we have forgotten our deeper human needs and those of others. In order to counter this, we need to accept concepts like "giving," solidarity and human rights but not "giving away." "Giving" has a genuine human value that "giving away" has not. However, giving is to a large extent confused with giving away. Therefore, the sense in which I am using "giving away" will become clearer as you read this article. In my life, there are many times when I have given something to somebody without much reflection on the act. I admit that most often, the tendency has been “giving away”. For example, when I was studying philosophy in Harare, Zimbabwe, chicken was cooked more often than any other kind of meat. I used to like deep frying chicken in cooking oil just to make it brown and crisp. After the frying is done, I normally gave the used cooking oil to our gardener and never dared to reserve it. One reason for giving away the used cooking oil was because I knew that no one would use it. It was said that it was bad for our health. With the gardener, that was lucky because he would not buy cooking oil the whole week but save money from his small salary for some other use. Was I “giving” or “giving away”? As I now sit and reflect, I think I was “giving away” and not “giving”. TO “GIVE” AND “GIVE AWAY” “Giving away” is to let go of something you do not like or do not need. Since we had some unused cooking oil from the house, if it was genuine giving, I could have given the gardener some of the unused cooking oil. I gave away the used cooking oil instead of disposing of it. On the other hand, giving is when you let go what you like most. It is when you can sacrifice to give something to somebody when you can make use of it yourself. Here the motive determines the nature of giving. Genuine giving is done wholeheartedly. The attitude of giving should be that one gives what they could use. Giving is a moral concern in so far as it is a human action subject to evaluation. It is a moral concern because as human beings we apply evaluative terms to every aspect of our activity. For example, we evaluate our attitude of “giving” and distinguish from “giving away”. The idea of all this evaluation is according to Aristotle's ethics, the flourishing human life. Successful life is found in the context of relationships, which characterise life. Hence the flourishing life is for both the giver and the receiver. By giving the giver is fostering the good life of the other. But if the giver gives away, she or he is not seeking happiness, which often involve the quality of life of others in the web of relationships that characterise life. Therefore, if giving is fostering the good life, then consideration must be given to the well being of the whole person in her or his relationships. I want to argue that giving away used cooking oil, as earlier mentioned, does not enhance the good life as envisioned by Aristotle. GLOBALISATION AND ZAMBIA’S SITUATION In addition, giving has been morally threatened in this era of globalization. Due to globalization, there has been a great in-balance in trade especially in relation to food trade. For example, the Transnational Corporations (TNCs), account for more than 50% of global trade. The top five agro-chemical companies control almost the entire global market. As a result small-scale farmers and local cooperatives in developing countries are expected to compete on a very uneven playing field against corporations and heavily subsidized developed country farmers. In this case, Zambia is a very good example. Due to dry spells during the last farming season, which resulted in a crop failure and eventually a lot of people threatened to die of hunger, the United States (USA) government has recently pushed the Zambian government to accept the Genetically Modified maize in order to fight hunger. While hunger is quite severe especially in the southern part of the country, the US government overlooked the overall impact of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) on the agricultural sector. Given the dominance of the TNCs, it is likely that the long-term effects observed by the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) would be worth considering here. These problems include: "the high use of herbicide resulting in lower yields; loss of European markets for Zambian products because the European Union bans GMOs, potential environmental problems such as insect resistance, contamination of world plant relative to our domesticated crops, greater use of chemicals, less bio-diversity and harmful mutations that can cause disease, negative impact on informal seed sub-sector, which supplies 85% of planting seed to 75% of the farming community in this country." Of course not forgetting the harm it may eventually cause to health. Given the risks associated with accepting US genetically modified relief maize into Zambia, it is clear that the US is giving away the genetically modified maize for some other reason and not the reason of giving in order to enhance life. While the moral case for ensuring that the right of every human being to food is clear, a self-interest rather than an ethical view of the world cannot lead to the prioritisation of strategies to tackle hunger. Therefore, the Zambian government’s rejection of genetically modified maize is commendable. Instead of the US giving freely, apparently they are pushing Zambia to accept the maize. This raises a lot of suspicion on their motive of giving. One would call it “giving away”, since they are giving in order to boost their dominance in the GMO industry. The big problem in today's business sector, which is rightly criticised, is putting profits before people. For example, the implications of the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement, which allows the patenting of life forms, including seeds. The TRIPS agreement undermines certain basic rights to food and an adequate livelihood. Many governments in developing countries have been advocating that there should be no patenting of farmer's rights. The giving of genetically modified maize to Zambia by the US that is disguised in response to hunger undermines the right to save, breed and exchange seeds, the right to protect indigenous knowledge and the right to participate in decisions and influence policies over a countries’ natural resources base. I agree with Peter Henriot when he says that we need a "globalisation of concern." This is simply the value that emphasises the priority of people over profit, labour over capital and cooperation over competition. I would also add, “giving” over “giving away”. GOD’S EXAMPLE From a religious point of view, God challenges us to give what we like best. For example, God asked Abraham to give his son as a sacrifice. I suppose this must not have been an easy act for Abraham. However, with love and faith, Abraham gave his son as the best offering he could ever give. In addition, God Himself gave his son Jesus Christ to be among us and die for us. This is the greatest gift God could give, the most genuine giving. Giving what you cherish most without counting the cost. Thus, St. Paul challenges us when he says, "Each one should give as much as he has decided on his own initiative, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. God is perfectly able to enrich you with every grace, so that you always have enough for every conceivable need, and your resources overflow in all kinds of good work. As scripture says: To the needy he gave without stint, his uprightness stands firm for ever". (2 Corinthians 9: 7-9) CONCLUSION The primary goal of giving is to give life while “giving away” is self-centered and does not promote well being of all. Thus, giving generously promotes human life and dignity. In order to achieve this, each person needs to be morally sound and God fearing. Someone who looks at the other's needs as their needs and hence, promote happiness for all. Kelly
Michelo, S.J. |