Who should be responsible for financially supporting Jehovah's Witnesses, who put misguided faith in the failed 1975 "end-of-the-world" predictions, and went full-time preaching without any consideration for retirement many years later?
Kindness is an act of grace — not an obligation
Are successful brothers ethically required to help aging moneyless sister?
Toronto Star
Fri May 3, 2013
By: Ken Gallinger Ethically speaking columnist
Q: My husband grew up in a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Upon leaving home, half the siblings stayed with the religion, while the others vehemently rejected it. One sister became a “Pioneer;” she moved west to promote the religion as her calling in life.
Flash forward 40 years, and Pioneer Sis is now 65 years old. She has never had a job as such, and has always relied on the “green handshake” to get by. Her brothers have become successful, and are now being asked to support their sister in retirement. Is it our responsibility to do this?
A: Complicated ethical questions get easier when you filter out irrelevant factors.
In your case, the “Jehovah’s Witness” thing, as such, is beside the point. Sis made a choice: to dedicate life to her faith. But lots of people make choices that leave them without adequate resources for retirement. Some choose to be artists or musicians; others gamblers or drunks. Some choose religious vocation, others a lifetime on the sofa eating Jos Louis. Some spend every cent on consumer goods, retiring with a mountain of debt; others save and invest.
Depending on our biases, we judge some choices better than others; I tend to think a life given to faith might be more fulfilling than one given to IBM, but that’s just my bias. Evaluating Sis’s decisions is not up to you. Your dilemma is simpler: given that someone makes choices that leave them impoverished, are siblings obligated to support them?
The answer is “no.”
Your sister-in-law’s poverty wasn’t forced upon her by health, disability, addiction or violence. That would be a different situation. But Sis made decisions of her own free will. Responsibility for the consequences is hers — not yours.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t help; I am saying you shouldn’t feel obligated to do so. That one word, “obligated,” is all the difference.
Presumably you and your husband are also at, or near, retirement age. If you have adequate resources to take care of yourself and decide to shower Sis with financial blessings, that’s a lovely thing to do. But that’s the point: your help needs to be understood as an act of generosity, rather than of obligation. It’s something you choose to do, rather than something you must do.
Several years ago, the Newfoundland folk band Great Big Sea recorded a hit called Consequence Free. The chorus went: “I wanna be consequence free; I wanna be where nothing really matters.” Good luck with that. Whether a consequence-free world would be an improvement is highly debatable; what’s clear is that life, in fact, doesn’t work that way.
It’s terrific that, in Canada, much of life, for most people, is shaped by choices we make, rather than dictates imposed by others. But the old principle of logic that we learned in high school, “if A, then B” still applies, even here.
Sis made a decision about her life’s course. Hopefully, it worked out as she wanted. If you choose to help out with the financial results, that’s very kind. But kindness is an act of grace — not obligation.
You say she’s never had a job in her life. McDonalds is hiring.
http://www.thestar.com/life/2013/05/03/kindness_is_an_act_of_grace_not_an_obligation.html
