There are
some that believe that we should sell our possessions and become homeless
ourselves; Jesus himself calls for us to sell our possessions and follow him
(Mk 10:21; Lk 12:33; 18:22; Mt 19:21) but I know that money equates to power
and the ability to be heard within society. Chuck Collins is an example of one
that takes the ethic of responsibility further than I feel comfortable with,
yet he was able to maintain his power, voice, and influence.
Chuck
Collins, the great-grandson of Oscar Mayer and a Unitarian Universalist, at the
ripe age of 26 gave the entirety of his birthright “to foundations and groups
that he knew needed funding”[1]
believing it to be an important step on his journey towards creating a more
just society. An article from 2003 covers his defense of the Estate Tax by
starting with his early life experience, the source of his authority. Discussing
his early life experience working in disadvantaged communities, such as
Appalachia, we see how Collins arrived at the decision to give away his
inheritance. Collins is a “radical meritocratist”[2],
operating out of a responsibility ethic, who believes that each generation
should start out fresh instead of inheritance allowing those of less quality to
end up in positions of power based solely on the merits of their forefathers.
I was
challenged to decide if Collins was acting out of teleology, deontology, responsibility,
care, narrative, or virtue ethics as he does not come from a solely Christian
perspective (but instead a Unitarian Universalist perspective) so the article
was missing the key “buzzword” clues to help me locate his method for arriving
at his decisions. Sola scriptura or the Kingdom of God are not what drives him
but coming from another faith tradition, Collins uses different terms that may have
similar overall intentions. This required me delving deeper into his method,
looking at his intention.
As Collins
is focused not on the end result but rather evaluating his decision based on
the guiding principle that it was the “right thing to do”, I see a strong
argument for deontology using Lovin’s chapter 3. Lovin states on page 42,
“Deontological ethics evaluates actions by asking whether this action was the right
thing to do according to a rule, not by assessing what happens as the result of
the action”; since we know that Collins was less concerned about the consequences
of giving up his inheritance but was instead driven by his need to do what he
felt was right stating, “Wealth that just creates more wealth seemed wrong”.[3]
Even when his father pleaded with him to consider possible, future children and
their care considerations, Collins was not swayed from making what he believed
to be the right decision. But Collins’ reasoning does not seem to be guided by
“rules”, so it appears he is not a deontologist.
An argument
could be made for teleology when French writes, “He began to see that inherited
wealth—including his own trust fund—was a piece of the problem he was working
to solve.”[4]
The visualization of goal begins to take form but this is the only real
instance of goal-centered language, so apparently Collins is not a teleologist.
We could also say that Collins comes from a care ethic based on the fact that
he created United for a Fair Economy which indicates his emphasized value on
relationships and his focus on what he sees as just. To Gilligan’s point on 35,
Collins is perceiving and responding to the perceived need. And since Collins
seems to be able to balance two different moral orientations, again a
reasonable argument could be made for an ethic of care but I just don’t hear
him using terminology that Gilligan would ascribe to care (38).
Like many
people, Collins does not operate out of solely one location: he seems to secondarily
operate out of virtue/narrative ethic; in fact, I had a hard time deciding if
he was more responsibility ethic or virtue ethic. As Lovin states on 64, virtue
ethics are what help us arrive at a “systematic understanding of the moral
life”. Just as Aristotle calls for us to develop a pattern of behavior that
becomes so engrained that it becomes second nature, we see Collins through his
life making conscious decisions to help create a more just society. As Lovin points
out, “The balance between self and others has to be struck … those choices
[must] add up to a coherent plan for life for the person who is making them”
(74) Collins states, “You can’t be too rigid or ideological.”[5]
Collins walks the middle way, putting money in his kids’ college fund and
giving to the United Students Association, an organization that works to lower
tuitions. He is the model for the person who Lovin believes will be able to
maintain this level of ethical living. The article wraps up by focusing on
Collins’ daily life and the daily decisions he makes in order to make the world
a more just place for everyone, with Collins asking, “Am I going to have
special privilege in relation to this problem?”[6]
Thereby clearly illustrating how he has made his virtue ethic a habit.
However I
came to the conclusion that Collins is operating primarily out of an ethic of
responsibility. It was Niebuhr’s description of the second element of
responsibility that confirmed my conclusion. Niebuhr speaks of asking “‘What
shall I do?’ by raising the question: ‘What is going on?’” (202). Collins recognized the inequality that
is present in the United States while working to help educate the people about
economics by creating the workshop, The Growing Divide, which morphed into
United for a Fair Economy.[7]
“If there is to be any debate or change, he figures, ordinary people have to
understand the wealth gap and what is wrong with it, just as the early patriots
and Progressive Era reformers did.”[8]
While working with United for a Fair Economy, he engaged in street theater (among
other things) and published The Activist Cookbook in order to help others take
similar actions. He is about action: action, interpretation, and accountability
(Niebuhr, 202). Collins not only noticed what was going on but also continued in
his thinking to figure out how he can respond.
When we
look at Collins’ strong emphasis on social solidarity, we can clearly see that
he is acting out of an ethic of responsibility. Collins enacts what Trimiew
calls for us to do: “responsible selves have an obligation to participate in
the struggle for the fulfillment of basic human needs…” (85). Collins is acting
out of knowledge that we are living in an “interdependent web of all existence
of which we are a part”[9]
(the Seventh Unitarian Universalist Principle) his Unitarian Universalist faith
builds his understanding that we are social creatures and are accountable to
each other for the dynamic outcomes of our actions. Collins is coming from an
ethic of responsibility; he does not preach or give imperatives, he speaks to
what feels right to him, how he wants the world to look and what he can do to
make it so.
“In none of them shall I take the
deontological stance, saying, ‘We ought to be responsible’; nor yet the ideal
saying, ‘The goal is responsibility’; but I shall simply ask that we consider
our life of response to action upon us with the question in mind, ‘To whom or
what am responsible and in what community of interaction am I myself?’”
(Niebuhr, 204).
Collins never states an imperative for
others; he does not use words like ought or goal, he acts with mindfulness of
the outcomes and those that may be effected, he responds within the greater
community.
In
conclusion, Collins, operating out of an ethic of responsibility, calls for support
of the Estate Tax and he himself gave away the entirety of his inheritance.
While I see merit in his argument, I believe that there is another option, one
that allows for greater balance, which could operate here. Due to his being the
great-grandson of Oscar Meyer, he already had social connections that allow him
to navigate a system that can be difficult for those without money or power to
break into. He, like Trimiew’s critique of Niebuhr, forgets about the marginalized
moral agent. Collins is perfectly happy acting as the empowered moral agent on
behalf of the marginalized. I believe that a greater middle way could be struck,
even though I am uncertain as to what that would look like.
[1] Kimberly French, “From
Riches to Responsibility: Defending the Estate Tax,” UU World (Mar/Apr 2003), under first section,
http://www.uuworld.org/2003/02/feature2.html (accessed April 5, 2012).
[2] Kimberly French, “From Riches
to Responsibility: Defending the Estate Tax,” UU World (Mar/Apr 2003), under last section,
http://www.uuworld.org/2003/02/feature2.html (accessed April 5, 2012).
[3] Kimberly French, “From
Riches to Responsibility: Defending the Estate Tax,” UU World (Mar/Apr 2003), under first section,
http://www.uuworld.org/2003/02/feature2.html (accessed April 5, 2012).
[4]
Kimberly French, “From
Riches to Responsibility: Defending the Estate Tax,” UU World (Mar/Apr 2003), under second section,
http://www.uuworld.org/2003/02/feature2.html (accessed April 5, 2012).
[5] Kimberly French, “From
Riches to Responsibility: Defending the Estate Tax,” UU World (Mar/Apr 2003), under last section,
http://www.uuworld.org/2003/02/feature2.html (accessed April 5, 2012).
[6] Ibid.
[7]
Note: Collins was a
co-founder of both The Growing Divide and UFE.
[8] Kimberly French, “From
Riches to Responsibility: Defending the Estate Tax,” UU World (Mar/Apr 2003), under fifth section,
http://www.uuworld.org/2003/02/feature2.html (accessed April 5, 2012).
[9]
Unitarian Universalist
Association of Congregations, “Our Unitarian Universalist Principles,”
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. https://www.uua.org/beliefs/principles/index.shtml (accessed
March 6, 2012).
No comments:
Post a Comment