Orphanages

Babies without parents, who wouldn't want to help! If anything could be a cut and dried right and wrong test, surely it is how we care for the orphans. For this very reason big money every year goes to support countless orphanages around the world. There are so many orphanages, that it seems highly improbable that they are all filled with children who truly have no other option for care.

So lets deconstruct this a little bit. First question, are all the children actually orphans (both parents are dead). This is now my first question whenever I hear about an orphanage. The answer generally comes back with qualifications. Yes, some are semi-orphans, some have parents, but they are so poor it is difficult for them to care for their children, some are abandoned by their parents. Next question, is there no extended family willing to care for the child? Same answers, dead, poor, don't care. Next question, what opportunities do "graduates" of this orphanage have? Here fund-raisers proudly report on the education, food, and clean drinking water that is "lavished" on the little have-nots.

Let's swing around and look at the choices that a would-be caretaker (parent, or extended family) has. Choice one, care for the child; outcome: status quo for the community. Choice two, abandon, relinquish, refuse to care for the child; outcome: status quo for "graduates" of the orphanage.

OK, so what happens when the status quo outcome for "orphans" is better than the status quo outcome for children cared for by parents/relatives in the community? The would-be care takers who are looking after the best interest of the child have a genuine moral dilemma: Is it better for the child to be cared for by family, or to be afforded more socio-economic options upon reaching adulthood?

That provokes more questions. Is it moral for orphanages to create such a moral dilemma for parents/relatives? If not, what responsibility lies with the funders of the orphanage. What is the ethical standard for the level of disclosure about the other options for children cared for in an orphanage?

What about would-be care takers who use the orphanage option to rationalize not taking responsibility for the child? This could be a parent who chooses to spend money on alcohol rather than caring for their child, or a relative who neglects the normal cultural responsibility of caring for orphaned family members.

More questions... What is the orphanage's role in changing cultural norms, and what are the moral implications of that role? What moral issues are raised when cultural norms change due to an institutional presence, and then that institution ceases functioning? Does it make a difference if the orphanage is set up by the government or an NGO?

Related issues will be explored on my forthcoming blogs about "international adoption" and "education is the answer".

Reflections on Morality

Morality in modernity was right, as opposed to wrong. They were completely separated, with no overlap. They defined each other. Now that we have entered post-modernity we have a responsibility to rethink our understanding of morality. Some parts of our old understanding are no longer useful to us, there are too many exceptions for the modern rules to work. But more importantly, we now have paradigmatic space to progress morally. Splitting hairs to find the precise location of that line between right and wrong is no longer relevant. Instead, lets zoom-in, pan out, look at things from a different angle... re-examine it all.

Consider the following 2 ideas:

1)Good intentions creating evil.
2)Doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

Questions: What role do intentions play in morality? When morality and immorality are intertwined, what can we learn from the irony/paradox?