Arrowman

Typhon's "I don't Love all the Dead Firemen" rant
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000647" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000647</a>
got me to thinking about the moral/ethical issues surrounding compensation for victims of crime, natural disasters and all the other bad things that happen in this Fallen World

When our fellow humans fall victim to some event, we have a natural tendency to want to help. And since the only way that most of us can provide direct help is through financial donation, we very often "give until it hurts"; often via a special campaign set up for the purpose. Sometimes, we begin to question this in various ways. And often, we keep our doubts to ourselves for fear of condemnation by others.

Here are some of the questions we might ask, and I'd be interested in the thoughts of others. Lots of questions, please feel free to pick and choose those you wish to address

Oh, PS - for the sake of preserving the scope of the discussion, may I suggest that we restrict ourselves to discussing domestic disasters, rather than discussing the morals of how we deal with local vs overseas disasters. Just a suggestion.

When is enough, enough?

For the high-profile events, fundraising campaigns will often enjoy such widespread support that they may gather funds far in excess of what is strictly necessary for adequate support/compensation for the victims.

Question: How do we define "strictly necessary for adequate support/compensation"? What sort of principles do we apply?

Question: If fundraising raises an amount in excess of "strictly necessary", do we
a. Return the money to the donors? (impractical)
b. Just give it all to the victims (risks turning Personal Disaster into Lottery Win)
c. Put the excess into some other equivalent fund to help others?

I think c. above is the most appropriate answer, especially given that the amount of money raised (and therefore support available to victims) tends to be a function of the scale of, and publicity surrounding, the event. Other victims of similar but lower-profile events need help, too - but the reality is that funds only ever get raised in any serious amounts by the "big events". Diverting excess from "big events" would help alleviate this inequality.

(And by the way - why do we never hear about what actually happened to the money, after the event? Typhon, for example, may be entitled to be cynical about how much more fundraising is needed for WTC firemen, if he (a) knows that an enormous amount has already been donated, and (b) has not seen any public accounting for the money raised so far.)

How do we, or should we, differentiate between victims on the basis of...

I think that generally speaking we should differentiate, if only because it goes to ensuring the most effective use of donated money.

Their access to other sources of support?

Say two people are killed in a train wreck. One has employer insurance that covers them on a journey to/from work, the other has none. No-one's foresight, no-one's fault, just fortunate for one family. Should we differentiate in the amount of support given to the two families?

Their preparedness / willingness to take care of themselves?

We've seen this one before - Two families lose their homes in a bushfire. One is insured, one is not. (Let us assume that both families were reasonably able to afford some insurance.) The uninsured family "needs" the [donated] money more, on the other hand, why should the public donate to cover the fact that the family did not provide a basic level of self-protection?

Voluntary exposure to risk?

Do [the families of] WTC firemen deserve more, or less, compensation than the other victims?
Does [the family of] a person killed in a cave-in while potholing, deserve as much compensation as a person who was killed when they were walking their dog over the top of aforesaid collapsed cave?

The scale of the event?

Alluded to above - It seems that when fifty homes are destroyed in a major bushfire, public money floods in, but when one home is destroyed in a domestic fire, there is little if any public donation. Should we divert some portion of funds from "major disaster fundraising" into a pool for "minor" disasters?

wildernesse

I believe that the Red Cross does C. in most cases. The last president of the RC made everyone furious because she wanted the WTC money in a separate account. Generally, the RC’s money goes into the pot, and then people who have “a” house fire are as well provided for as the neighborhood that went up in flames.

Also, if you don’t want to contribute—it’s your money. Saying no is never as difficult as it seems.

--tiba

Arrowman

Indeed; good point. And that is why I always feel more comfortable giving to a Red Cross or similarly sponsored appeal, than an event-specific appeal.

I get that from women all the time

The Other Michael

NPR had a report on the Red Cross recently.

IIRC the San Diego chapter was basically gutted - management and board of directors, after a big scandal in which they were collecting money and not disbursing it (and the director was making $200-300K a year).

They were also using people for "poster children" who they never helped.

Audio of the show at <a href="http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/segment_display.cfm?segID=144504" target="_blank">NPR Red Cross</a>

cheers,
Michael