Is supporting politically or socially radical ideas an obligation or an opportunity? If the ideas are beneficial to society, it could be argued that a person’s support is obligatory.
I’ve written before that if we agree that others in the world exist, then their lives are just as valuable as those who we see on a daily basis. We agree that those who we see suffer, through digital means, are not non-player characters in our own simulation.
I do believe helping these people is a moral obligation. Just as many people I know believe tithing to a religious institute is a moral obligation. However, my beliefs do not matter. My religious friends’ beliefs do not matter.
When you tell someone what you believe, you’re sharing your ideas with them. When telling someone why they should believe what you believe, you’re preaching.
People do not want to be preached to. Looking at the religious example; people do want to adhere to a god that is going to send them to hell if they do not obey to his commands.
They want to have a relationship with a god that is going to love them unconditionally and spiritually guide them through life’s obstacles.
When looking at these two statements, both are backed by scripture. They are both “true” if you believe a monotheistic religious text. But, they tell two completely different stories.
Financially successful religious organizations in the US have done a tremendous job of telling their story. Better yet, none of the information they present is based on facts. Their strategies have transformed believers to donors. All purely based on faith.
To clarify, I’m not belittling religious organizations. I’m praising them. And I wish this messaging was more prevalent in social cause areas.
Presenting people with an opportunity to do good, to be a part of something, is an incredibly powerful tool. Making the experience about a person’s impact on the world shows a path towards purpose.
And purpose will always trump obligation. It has in religion. It will in the coming technological revolutions.
Would you rather do good because you’re a lucky beneficiary of capitalism, or because you have the resources to have a positive impact on the world?
Both may be true, but I imagine one will resonate more than the other.
Remember, orgs have the ability to present their story in any way they like. Why not present it in a way that attracts everyone?
Criticizing capitalism, western ideals, and free market economies is a something I’ve seen in some social impact circles. It is not an official position, or is it one that everyone involved in these areas agrees with.
And, bluntly, I don’t think it really matters if you’re a capitalist, socialist, anarchist, or any other sort of political/economical ideologue.
What does matter is getting people from all backgrounds to support crucial cause areas that immediately help those who are suffering. It also is important to have brilliant minds working on areas that can impact the future of humanity.
The revolutionaries, those who work relentlessly for change, will be there.
But, wouldn’t it be helpful if they had nearly everyone’s support? Even if the support varied person to person?
I like to think a minimum of 10% from everyone is better than a 100% from few.