In chapter 9, Ripstein
discusses Kant’s position on the role of religious organizations in providing
for the poor. Ripstein describes religious organizations to be “purely private,
and [that] the fulfilling of religious obligations must be understood as instances
of people pursuing purely private purposes” (282). Kant also writes that the
state must be wary about religious organizations because “they claim to respond
to an authority higher than the state that may conflict with it” (282).
Although I do understand
the argument that is made by both Kant and Ripstein in describing religious
organizations as serving private purposes, I am not fully convinced that the
perfect solution is instead solely supporting the poor through taxes. By the government
playing the only role in providing for the poor and not having any other
organizations contribute, it is taking away the agency of the individual to act
on one’s voluntary desire to do good. To this, the response will most likely be
the argument that Ripstein makes about the parallelism between charity and
slavery. Although I think taxes should play the main role in providing for the
poor, I also think that there is an important element of individual freedom in
giving out of freewill, whether it is through religious organizations or
through other non-profits, in addition to the aid given to the poor through taxes. There are faith-based non-profit organizations that
solely devote themselves to humanitarian aid without trying to promote their
own beliefs on the people that they are helping. In other words, they are
organizations that exist for the simple sake of doing good and do not have an
alternative agenda, although their religious beliefs may be what prompted them
to act. Although this does not answer Ripstein's criticism about his broader
argument regarding charity, it does address his criticism that religious
organizations are always pursuing private purposes.
I don't think either Kant or Ripstein is saying that the individual is no longer allowed, or encouraged, to give out of a sense of duty to help others. As Ripstein says, "[Kant's] claim about how needs must be met through public rather than private action leaves plenty of scope for private actions . . . Charitable support for . . . activities to make other people happy is consistent with Kantian right, and so an appropriate exercise of Kantian virtue" (283). The point is that regardless of anyone's motive behind giving charity, it is still that individual's choice to be charitable in the first place. There is no reason for religious organizations to stop their charitable work; in fact, such work may be especially virtuous in a society in which the government--though legitimate and in a rightful condition--has instituted only an inefficient tax system. For Kant, though, there is no way to avoid the necessity of taxation, and while religious organizations might be virtuous, and even help someone move from dependence to independence, the overall solution to dependency must be public. Private solutions like charity have an inherent dependency-creation problem, which will always make them untenable solutions for Kant.
ReplyDelete