The Moral Imperative for Giving

When they saw the little girl running toward the busy intersection, Osvaldo Lugo and Rafael Santana didn’t think twice. Their clients, draped in smocks, watched as the two Connecticut barbers dropped their equipment mid-cut to rush into traffic after the child. The fact that they were at work didn’t deter Lugo and Santana. “Once I looked and saw the top of the baby’s head,” Lugo said, “the only thought in my head was: run after her.”

If you were in their shoes, would you have worried about the potential loss of business, or would you have raced outside to save the girl? Most would agree that any inconvenience arising from a rescue like this is insignificant compared to the value of a human being’s life. In fact, this scenario isn’t really a choice at all. It has one right answer.

Let’s consider another situation. Around the world, hundreds of millions of people fight to survive each day. Those who live in extreme poverty (defined by the World Bank as subsisting on 2.15 USD per day or less) don’t have enough to meet basic human needs for healthcare, nutrition, sanitation, education, or shelter. Luckily, you can help them—without heading into oncoming traffic to do so. Most citizens of affluent nations—even those who are not themselves affluent, relative to the standards of their society—could help end the poverty crisis at a relatively low cost without significant reduction to their quality of life. 

The story of Lugo and Santana presents a standard of ethical behavior: When the expense is insignificant relative to the harm you can prevent, then you must act. In The Life You Can Save, I wrote about this principle, which evaluates the ethics of what we do—or don’t do—based on the consequences. The principle recognizes that it is within our power to alleviate life threatening resource scarcity, such as a lack of food and housing. If we don’t act to do so when we can, without suffering any real hardship ourselves, then we’re not living an ethical life.  

Some may say that we should first help those in need in our own community. But from an ethical perspective, physical closeness is less relevant than the extent of the needs we can alleviate with our resources, which are never unlimited. 

Donating can and should be viewed as a societal expectation—not just as casual generosity, but as a life-changing ethical obligation that should not be ignored. By eschewing complacency and self-interest, we can be a part of a community with global ethical horizons. Being part of this international community of people building a better world is a mutually rewarding mental shift: By benefiting others, you get to live a more ethical—and even joyful—life.

While this rationale is the cornerstone for us here at The Life You Can Save, we recognize there are myriad reasons others contribute to combat extreme poverty. For the Rationales series, I am honored to share this platform with several people who, through their work and contributions, embody that sense of global citizenship. Over the coming weeks, they will offer their reasons for you to give, both in terms of the harm they aim to address and the benefits they hope to achieve.