The Giving Tree Problem

Pols1150 taught me a lot about society. It confirmed for me that there is a standard of social justice that societies should uphold. It also taught me that societies should not trash property rights on the path to social justice, as economic freedoms are as important to a prosperous society as civil and social freedoms.

A good start.

But what about me? What do I do?

Jason Brennan endeavored to address these questions in his lectures on Peter Singer and sweatshop exploitation. The answers, predictably, were ambivalent:

• You should give to charity (if you can), but don't let the market die, because it is good.
• You should oppose poor working conditions in the third world, but watch out that, in doing so, you don't nip impoverished peoples' chance at prosperity in the bud

Qualified, "it depends" answers like these are unsatisfying. It is not that I can't deal with ambiguity. It's just that, between the time the sun comes up and goes down, I will have done X, Y, and Z, and I want XYZ to be moral actions. My economic prosperity means nothing to me if morally corrupt.

It comes down to what I call the Giving Tree problem.

Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree (recorded read-a-loud embedded above) can be interpreted in any of a thousand different ways. The basic story is this: a tree loves a boy, and a boy loves a tree. The boy derives great satisfaction from playing with/on the tree. When the boy grows up, he asks the tree for money, and the tree gives him its apples to sell. As an older adult, the tree generously gives the man his branches to build a house. Finally, as an older man, the tree gives its trunk to the man when he requests a boat in which to sail away. Finally, the man sits on the stump of the tree, and the tree is happy ("but not really"). A bittersweet ending.

From the looks of it, the tree and boy's relationship is a positive-sum interaction. The boy gets the materials it needs, while the tree derives satisfaction from helping the boy it so loves. It's that one line -- "And the tree was happy, but not really" -- that gives the story away. As much as the tree loves the boy, the relationship does not live up to a standard of mutualism. Instead, it is parasitic. The boy leeches on the tree, and the tree, though reluctant to admit it, is sapped of happiness (PUN INTENDED). Strangely enough, the parasitic actor doesn't turn out happy, either. When asking the tree for a boat, the man says, "I am too old and too sad to play. I need a boat to take me far away from here."

This comprises the Giving Tree problem. Thinkers like Peter Singer encourage individuals to be trees, giving of themselves indefinitely, at least within their means. Singer would never expect the tree to do away with its trunk, but he would probably approve of the tree giving away a good number of its branches.

Alternatively, thinkers like Ayn Rand would scoff at the idea of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. Ayn Rand would probably side with the boy, who seems to have an enterprising spirit and who productively milks the tree for all it is worth. Nonetheless, Rand would probably scold the boy for asking the tree to sacrifice for make sacrifices for him. As we know, she has a low tolerance for "moochers." She would applaud him for playing the market well, though.

In practice -- that is, in the book -- neither of these strategies work out. The boy and tree are coiled together in a rope gone slack. Neither prospers. Clearly, if this is the case, neither an exaggerated version of Singer's philosophy nor an embellished Randian ideology is moral.

So what is the lesson from this story?

I think it is this: do not be a parasite, and do not be a parasite's host. There is a medium somewhere between Rand's and Singer's philosophies that places a premium on RESPECT. This middle ground advises that I adhere to both positive and negative versions of the Golden Rule (i.e. both "do to others what you would like to be done to you" and "do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you"). If I treat others as moral equals, it seems I should be OK (morally speaking).

Jason Brennan has said a few times that he lacks egalitarian intuitions. I agree with him in that I lack normative egalitarian beliefs. I do, however, have the empirical egalitarian belief that all humans -- myself included -- deserve the same, basic allotment of respect.

I don't know how this political science course will/has affect/ed the way I conduct myself. I think, however, that any net influence it has had or will have on my present and future prosperity, moral and material, is positive.