I volunteer for a small nonprofit organization picking up free food from pantries and delivering it to an impoverished local community. Recently I learned that one of the directors of the organization lied to food pantry personnel to obtain more food for our clients. The pantry normally allocates one bag of food per week for each family. Our director said we were delivering to twice as many families, so each family actually received two bags a week. When asked to provide the names of the clients we were delivering to, our director gave fake names.
I’m uncomfortable with lying to sister organizations so we can procure more food than our families would receive under the established rules. And I worry that the extra bags for our families mean that other needy clients don’t get what they need.
When I discussed this with another volunteer, they reminded me that one bag of food could never feed our large client families and that the director’s intentions were good. Please help me sort this out. — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
Oh, dear. Accepting donations from a food pantry, pretending to deliver them to twice as many families as are actually receiving help and fabricating nonexistent recipients? Whatever the motives in this case, deception of this kind raises serious issues of integrity, especially because your organization’s leader is lying to people who are themselves trying to do good. The director is also courting scandal of the sort that could damage the organization’s ability to carry out its mission.
If the families you’re serving need additional help, there are at least two obvious ways to look for it. One is to look for more assistance elsewhere. Another is to go back to the folks at the food pantry and talk to them about adjusting the allocation. Because of this deception, there was no opportunity to talk with them about the needs of these families and no opportunity for them to explain their policy or to think about changing it. Right now, you don’t have the answer to the question of who’s being deprived by the diversion of those extra bags. And you don’t know whether the food pantry could raise more supplies for you had it recognized the need. In the meantime, if your director’s charitable chicanery comes out, the pantry will have every reason to distribute its bags through a different channel.
Consider raising your concerns directly with the director. Failing that, share what you’ve learned with the board members of your nonprofit. They can investigate and try to set things right. If they don’t, you may wish to find another place to volunteer. In the long run, the families who depend on this help are best served by an organization that deals in good faith with its partners. Charitable work depends on trust, and when that trust is abused, the people most likely to suffer are those who rely on the work being sustained.
None of this should obscure the larger injustice here. Your quandary should remind us how wrong it is that there are people in this rich society who struggle to feed their families.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader who wondered if he should stop giving money to a brother who keeps falling for romance scams. He wrote:
My older brother is in his early 70s and lives overseas. For many years he has repeatedly fallen for scams, most often involving “women” he meets online who claim they are about to receive an inheritance and plan to marry him. … I’ve spoken with him many times about these scams and the predictable outcomes. Despite this, he continues to send money, often giving away most or all of what he has. When the inevitable happens, he comes to me and other family members for help with basic needs like food. When I hesitate, he guilts me, saying, “If I can’t count on my family, who can I count on?” I care about him and want to maintain a relationship, but giving him money feels like enabling further exploitation. … Am I obligated to step in when he may face real hardship, even when doing so reinforces behavior that repeatedly puts him at financial risk? — Name Withheld
In his response, the Ethicist noted:
When you help your brother out after he gets swindled, you’re financing a destructive cycle, cushioning the pain for him and subsidizing the romance racket. … Surely the fact that he’s lonely and evidently unable to make connections in real life makes him ripe for counterfeit courtships that burn hot and are consummated with transfers of money. Can you suggest ways that your brother could meet people in real life? … If online romance scams are increasingly powered by A.I., would it make sense to encourage him to seek that comfort instead from an established “A.I. companion” service? The objections are obvious: Simulacrum relationships are a poor substitute for human ties and can foster an unhealthy dependency. … But he’s already going from one digital dalliance to another. If he’s desperate for online comfort, he might be better off paying a subscription fee to a recognizable, legally accountable business than surrendering his savings to an elusive criminal syndicate.
(Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
My wife and I are in our 70s, so this hits close to home, even if, as a couple going on 55 years of marriage, romance scams are not likely to snare us. But I (and, more important, my daughters) see signs of cognitive decline in both of us. If your brother is continually falling for the same kinds of scams, could this be a sign of cognitive decline? There are reasons scammers target older people. — Robert
⬥
I agree with the Ethicist’s response. I would add that you don’t set yourself on fire to keep someone else warm. That is what the letter writer is doing by dipping into his retirement funds and line of credit. His enabling of his brother hurts them both, and he should consider the possibility that he might become the next family burden if his money runs out. — Yvette
⬥
I love the Ethicist’s suggestion to use a paid “A.I. companion” service. After my 75-year-old stepdad was scammed out his entire $400,000 nest egg, I took a bit of a deep dive, trying to understand more about how the elderly are preyed upon. It broke my heart to learn that it’s not uncommon for people to continue these bloodsucking “relationships,” even after coming to the understanding that they are being scammed, simply for the companionship. My stepdad had worked in I.T. for decades — the firewall he created on his home computers was so strong that I couldn’t even attach a photo to an email without it getting rejected. The fact that he was taken in by not one but two scammers says volumes about the depth of his loneliness after the death of my mother. Here’s hoping for a solution to alleviate the loneliness of the writer’s brother. — Anna
⬥
Rather than an A.I. “companion,” perhaps the writer could try to find some organization in his brother’s locale that makes calls or sends emails to people in need of companionship. Many religious institutions and some charities have programs that contact people regularly who would otherwise be all alone — calls to check on taking meds, to offer meals or church events, even just to say good night. His brother might be able to answer his needs with these connections and get himself back into the real world at the same time. — Kate
⬥
Could the letter writer help his brother by buying food and other necessities for him in a way that does not allow him access to cash? Seems as if that could be a way to help without enabling. — Pat
The post Is It OK to Lie in Order to Feed Hungry Families? appeared first on New York Times.
