“What do we owe each other?”
This question was suggested as a prompt for this month’s blogs by a fellow OpenThinker, Nicole Arsenault. For many reasons, I felt like this was fitting to address in our final blogs.
I have given questions like this some thought throughout my life and I think the simple answer is: We owe it to each other to care.
We owe it to each other (and, really, ourselves) to care enough to act to the best of our ability in any given situation and in light of our own individual circumstances. (That last bit can be a significant qualifier; as I’ve been trying to accept over the past while, during challenging times, most of us won’t be capable of operating at our highest level.)
We owe it to each other to attempt to be compassionate and empathetic, following the “golden rule” as best as we can. And why shouldn’t we be expected to? We (hopefully) teach our children about the importance of the golden rule when they are young, so why does it become acceptable for people (and the governments, institutions, systems, and companies we create) to sometimes forget, to varying degrees, about the importance of caring and following the golden rule when it becomes difficult, costly, inconvenient, or frustrating?
Why do we owe it to each other to care?
I believe that we owe it to each other to care because communities are the sum of their parts and almost every action we take has the potential to affect someone else. We should care enough to make these effects as positive as possible. While it may sound cliché, by caring about how we affect others, we can make a positive difference in the lives of people around us and, by extension, to society.
To make a positive difference, we can start small. We don’t have to run for political office, volunteer 15+ hours a week, or donate to charity instead of buying any Christmas presents for loved ones. While all these things, of course, make a difference, and are wonderful and laudable, smaller efforts can go a long way. I have examples that I came up with a long time ago inspired by two of my high school influences (working at McDonald’s and reading Atlas Shrugged). While I will spare you the details, the common theme is imagining how wonderful of a world we would live in (or a fast-food restaurant experience you would have, if that’s your thing) if everyone cared enough to try to do their best in their given circumstances.
In contrast, consider what happens when people stop caring about how their actions affect others. The past few years—and 2020, in particular—have put some of these effects on dramatic display.
Taken to an extreme, apathy, individualism, and a lack of compassion can undermine our collective ability to create functioning, healthy, and productive communities—from the micro-level of households to the macro-level of global systems.
Our society risks becoming less responsive to the needs of the population when too many people become disengaged from their systems of government (often because they “don’t care about politics,” which is itself often a response to a perception that people in power don’t care about them). We lose our ability to benefit from new ideas and ways of thinking when we don’t care enough to have a respectful conversation with someone who does not share our views. As history has shown, when we care so little that we forget our common humanity and characterize or vilify people as “other,” abhorrent acts may become more widely tolerated. And, as we are seeing daily, not caring enough to do simple things like wear a mask or abide by public health restrictions during a pandemic can have deadly consequences.
Caring and Human Rights
To tie into my OpenThink mandate of writing a research-inspired blog, I recently came across a book chapter by a feminist legal philosopher, Virginia Held, entitled “Care and Human Rights.” In this chapter, she argues that if an insufficient number of people care about whether “their fellow members of society are treated decently there will not be sufficient trust and support to enable a legal or political system… to function” or for foundational human rights (particularly socio-economic human rights) to be implemented effectively. She argues that, for some issues, focusing on care rather than legal rights could be a more effective way of achieving positive change.
This message struck a chord with me because questions can be asked about the ability to use the law to effect positive and meaningful change. “Justice” can be frustratingly elusive. Litigation is an imperfect, costly, time-intensive, and uncertain tool. A prime example is the struggle and death of Irene Grootboom. She won a landmark case in 2001 against South Africa, in which the South African Constitutional Court recognized the enforceability of the right to housing. But, eight years after she won this case, she died, reportedly “homeless and penniless” at age 49. Where was the justice for her?
While I believe that fundamental human rights that countries have voluntarily agreed to respect ought to be enforceable, the ability for litigation to effect positive change should not be overstated. In some ways, an engaged, societal-wide commitment by individuals to caring and requiring our systems to be more equal, fair, and compassionate could end up being a more effective way of achieving the promises of international human rights and ensuring that as many people as possible can lead fulfilling and dignified lives.
This may not be as overly optimistic as it may seem. Scotland provides an example to watch. Due in part to continued efforts by individuals and groups seeking to have socio-economic human rights more effectively implemented, Scotland has started reviewing its laws, policies, and procedures and intends to draft new human rights legislation that will, among other things, lay the groundwork for more effective implementation of its socio-economic human rights obligations.
Caring and Global Challenges
The benefits of caring do not end at the water’s edge. As I’ve mentioned before, some of the (arguable) limitations of international law may be traced to the assessment by countries that it is not in their interest for certain rules to exist. In some ways, caring about others can be considered necessary if the global community has any hope of effectively addressing global issues like climate change and achieving the sustainable development goals. An often used example is the fact that the money it would take to end world hunger and poverty is dwarfed by the money countries spend on national defence.
Although it may be overly naïve to think that countries will not prioritize their interests in an international system that is stubbornly realist in many respects, there are reasons to be optimistic that international cooperation will continue to bear fruit.
Consider, for example, the gains that have been made over the last few generations. Until 1929, war was legal and a widely acceptable means of statecraft. Now, the Gambia has taken Myanmar to the International Court of Justice alleging that it has committed genocide against its Rohingya population. There is a world of difference (and a lot of development of international law) between these positions.
Prior to 1948, there was no formal legal recognition of the concept of human rights. Now, we have human rights enshrined in treaties, there are numerous international bodies and non-governmental organizations focused on human rights, regional human rights courts exist to provide individuals with a mechanism for bringing human rights claims against their governments, and many committed humanitarian workers (who sometimes pay with their lives) care so much that they make it their life’s work to help protect vulnerable people around the world.
While state sovereignty remains a fundamental principle of the international system, the concept has become more nuanced. Although it was generally accepted to operate as a shield protecting countries from outside interference in their internal affairs, state sovereignty has been recognized unanimously by almost all countries as imposing an obligation on governments to protect their populations from fundamental abuses like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
We have come far, but there is still far to go. For the promises of global cooperation to be achieved—and for important global challenges, including climate change, to be addressed—countries will need to adopt more caring foreign policies.
The Path Forward?
This fall, the United Nations marked its 75th anniversary, which provides a fitting opportunity to reflect on its role and mission.
In addition to promoting peaceful dispute resolution and helping prevent international armed conflicts, one of the UN’s primary purposes is “[t]o achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” I think an argument can be made that achieving this purpose requires countries to care—not only about their own populations, but also about the effects of their individual and collective actions abroad.
We stand at a crossroads of sorts. It is safe to say that 2020 has been tumultuous. The pandemic has laid bare weaknesses in social safety and healthcare systems, while exacerbating persistent inequality at the domestic and international levels. This year also saw more widespread attention on issues of racial equality and justice. Despite the promise of technology providing a means of facilitating communication, it has been used to exacerbate some divisions—and has even played a role in inciting genocide. We seem increasingly unable to discuss contentious matters in a productive and respectful manner. Nationalism is on the rise. Ideological, partisan, and socio-economic divides seem increasingly unbridgeable. The lines between fact and fiction are becoming indiscernible for many.
These developments should concern us all. At their heart, they underscore the need for people to care about shoring up, from the individual level, the foundation for compassionate, fair, and productive societies at local, national, and global levels.
Speaking on Nelson Mandela’s birthday in July 2020, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Gueterres, highlighted the risks facing the global community and how “COVID-19 is shining a spotlight on… injustice.” While conspiracy theorists (and others) have started taking words out of context, he called for the development of a “New Social Contract” based on a “New Global Deal” for global governance that is “based on full, inclusive and equal participation in global institutions” in order to help achieve “[t]he vision and promise of the United Nations” that “food, healthcare, water and sanitation, education, decent work and social security… not [be] commodities for sale to those who can afford them, but [are instead] basic human rights to which we are all entitled.”
Implicit in Secretary-General Gueterres’ message is that caring is necessary to achieve this vision:
As Nelson Mandela said: “One of the challenges of our time… is to re-instill in the consciousness of our people that sense of human solidarity, of being in the world for one another and because of and through others.”
The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced this message more strongly than ever.
We belong to each other.
We stand together, or we fall apart.
Today, in demonstrations for racial equality… in campaigns against hate speech… in the struggles of people claiming their rights and standing up for future generations… we see the beginnings of a new movement.
This movement rejects inequality and division, and unites young people, civil society, the private sector, cities, regions and others behind policies for peace, our planet, justice and human rights for all. It is already making a difference.
Now is the time for global leaders to decide:
Will we succumb to chaos, division and inequality?
Or will we right the wrongs of the past and move forward together, for the good of all?
We are at breaking point. But we know which side of history we are on.
Perhaps, individual by individual, we can collectively care enough to rise to this challenge as best we can. At the very least, by trying to care a little bit more, we might make the day of someone we interact with just a little bit brighter.
Thanks for reading… and for caring!
Image by Foundry Co from Pixabay
