Africa's Moment
Global Social Benefit Incubator
Global Social Benefit Incubator 2008
Exercise 1: Target Market Statement
GSBI 2008
GSBI 2008 Application
Contact Us
Press Room
Document Actions
Lifeboat ethics
Filed Under:
Should we as a sector be trying to rescue FORGE?
This entry is from Curtis Chang, CEO of Consulting Within Reach (CWR). CWR has recently agreed to provide pro bono services to FORGE. As part of this experiment in radical transparency, Social Edge and Kjerstin have invited Curtis to regularly share about the experience in this context.
Quiz time:
1. You are an organ transplant doctor. Who should get the newly donated liver?
a. 71 year old single man with acute liver disease but is in otherwise in good condition
OR
b. 28 year old mom with chronic liver disease and has numerous other ailments
2. You are Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson. Which firm do you bail out?
a. venerable 140 year old financial services firm that employs 25,000 people (Lehman Bros)
OR
b. younger but larger insurance firm that has dealings with almost every major financial institution (AIG)
3. You are a donor looking to make an end of the year gift. Which nonprofit gets your check?
a. 5 year old startup serving refugees in Africa that is fighting to stay solvent
OR
b. established homeless shelter in your hometown
The answers are not not clear, are they? And they shouldn’t be.
Which is why, in this strange experiment in transparency we’re conducting here, I as the consultant find myself asking very publicly a peculiar question about my client:
“Should WE try to save it?”
Now, note the pronoun. I’m not asking whether ANYONE should try to save FORGE. I’ve been on the case for less than a week, but I can already tell that FORGE is a worthwhile cause for any given individual. So, of course, Kjerstin should try and FORGE’s donors and volunteers should try.
But the amount of public attention showered on this situation is raising this to a different level than the feelings and conscience of an individual. More seeds of such a sector wide effort are being sown: Skoll was already invested, Sean Stannard-Stockton (a philanthropic thought leader) was next, I joined, Rich Polt (a leading nonprofit PR expert) was not far behind, and we’re getting more offers daily.
Yet we haven't had a robust discussion yet about whether such a collective, high profile bailout plan is the right thing to do. Should WE really try to save FORGE?
Or to put it in more personal terms, I feel at peace about how I’m individually donating my time and expertise. That donation is focused on providing the “foxhole prayer”: the long term plan FORGE will follow if it survives this crisis. Theoretically, I have only committed to delivering that plan and it’s not my responsibility to help FORGE survive.
But I’m also human. Four days in and I already want it to survive (and also wouldn’t have taken this gig if I didn’t have something of that feeling already). And, to continue our transparency here, my wife and I plan on also donating some money towards FORGE’s short term crisis.
But even with the mission creep of my heart already starting (which darn it, I just knew was going to happen) that still doesn’t mean I should be advocating for a lot more resources to be devoted to this rescue effort. My choice doesn’t automatically mean that FORGE should suddenly become the sector's recipient of choice. And yes, while FORGE gets an "A" for transparency, that doesn't mean it should get the teacher's undivided attention for the rest of the class.
It is an important ethical question because the world is a place of scarce resources, and nowhere is that truer than in the social sector. There are many, many fine nonprofits who will be struggling to survive the next few months. They won’t be getting the press that Rich will generate; the counsel I will provide, further contacts Sean will make, and yes, the donor dollars that hopefully will flow. Many of those other organizations will go under.
The philosopher Garret Hardin coined the term “Lifeboat ethics” to underline the moral requirement that in situations of scarcity, the collective must rigorously ask “Who ought we to save? And who must we let go under?”
Like I said, I have to confess that I won’t be able to address this question without bias (not that anyone can). I’ve already taken on FORGE as a client, and once an organization becomes my client, every one of them automatically becomes like the residents of Lake Woebegone: “strong, good looking, and above average.”
But I want to do my best to pose that question publicly. For the sake of everyone, whether they end up in the lifeboat or in the water.
So let me try to structure the discussion:
A basic moral requirement for a collective bailout is that the failure of that individual entity will damage the collective good in an especially profound way. The entity has to play a role in the ecosystem that cannot be easily replaced.
This is why AIG got the bailout and Lehman Bros didn’t. AIG was so interwoven with other firms that it would have dragged many other firms under with it. Similarly, if Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae collapsed, there were no other similar institutions that could step in their place
Or alternatively, a bailout may be justified when there is a future benefit for the collective good that can only be achieved if the individual entity survives, grows, and eventually matures. Again, that benefit has to have an unique quality that can’t easily be found elsewhere.
This is why on an organ donor list the very young are favored over the very old. It is understood the child has more to contribute to society if she survives, but that contribution may take years to come to fruition.
So, we need compelling answers to at least two big questions:
- What damage to the collective are we averting with a collective bailout of FORGE?
- What collective good – even if it is in the future -- are we seeking by working for FORGE’s survival?
Keep in mind that what is needed here are a different set of answers than the ones Kjerstin provided earlier about the strengths of FORGE's work. At this point, I am confident that FORGE does good work. But does it do indispensable work?
I hate to call out my client in such a public fashion, but Kjerstin and I agreed to precisely this kind of open dialogue.
I believe what happens next in this collective experiment depends on how Kjerstin answers that question. And it may be that the survival of her cause depends on how you feel about her answer.
Like I said, I know I’m supposed to be involved. But is everyone else?
