The Catholic Thing
A Right to Complain, an Obligation to Help Print E-mail
By Randall Smith   
Thursday, 14 August 2014

If I were to sum up one of the key challenges we face in contemporary American society, it would come down to something like this: Too many people think they have a right to complain, but not an obligation to help.

I am far from suggesting that we don’t have a right to complain.  Actually, I’d rather say that we have an obligation to complain – but to complain responsibly.  One of the problems with “rights” talk is that we can lose a sense of the purpose of rights.  By contrast, when we talk about obligations, we usually have a better sense of what we’re obligated to and why

Economist Amartya Sen is renowned for research showing that democracy and free speech help prevent famines, because democratic governments “have to win elections and face public criticism, and have strong incentive to undertake measures to avert famines and other catastrophes.”  Thus one of the reasons we have an obligation to complain is precisely so that the government is forced to recognize problems and seek suitable solutions.

If we understand the “right” to complain in this sense, then the “right” also comes along with various “responsibilities.”  Let me suggest four in particular. 

First, we have an obligation to speak clearly and honestly about the situation and not overstate the problem.  When everything is described as a “catastrophe” or a “disaster,” before long nothing will be taken seriously as a catastrophe or a disaster.  Efforts to “gin up” support by excessively dramatic rhetoric usually end up merely cheapening the value of political discourse, causing everyone to think everyone else is simply “crying wolf.”  When you’ve cried wolf enough times, then no matter how much you moan about how people should “care more” about the poor, defenseless sheep, most people just aren’t listening any more.  People tune out, and the ends of public complaint are not served.

Second, we have an obligation to discern honestly and truthfully the actual causes of the problem and distinguish these from things that just happen to have coincided. One of philosopher David Hume’s most valuable insights was making clear that, simply because two events coincide (happen to occur at the same time), it does not follow that one has caused the other. If one finds contaminants in the ground water, and at the same time: (A) more immigrants have been flooding into the county, and (B) more fracking has been taking place several miles away, it does not necessarily follow that either A or B has caused the problem.

      The Good Samaritan by Aimé Morot (1880)

Third, in a related vein, given the difficulties inherent in uncovering chains of causality, it’s probably best for our first response to a problem not to be an effort to assign blame. Often enough, whatever we thought caused the problem actually may not have.  And even if a person or group can be shown to be ultimately  responsible for a certain problem, given the complexity of chains of causality, it’s just as likely the people involved intended something good, and perhaps even achieved a lot of good, but that there were unforeseen consequences.  When we spend a lot of time in blaming and recriminations, we often lose sight of the unforeseen nature of causality, and worse yet, the degree to which everything we intend is so often bound up with consequences we can’t foresee.

Finally, along with our obligations to complain responsibly, we also have an obligation to do what we can to help. Our tendency at times in American society is to complain: “Why doesn’t somebody do something?”  Or: “How heartless can the government be?  They don’t do enough about the problem!”  Well, yes, there is the government; it has a role.  But then again, there’s me, and my friends, my church group, and civic associations; we might do what we can. 

In our society, people seem increasingly to assume they only have obligations to those they choose to be obligated to, and none at all to those problems they haven’t expressly chosen (such as unintended pregnancies or parents with Alzheimer’s or immigrant children on the border).   Indeed people increasingly seem to resent what philosopher Martin Heidegger called the “thrownness” of human existence – what the Stoics used to call “fate” – the fact that we often find ourselves “thrown” into circumstances not of our choosing and not entirely within our control.  

Resentment is fostered by the illusion of control often provided by modern science and technology.  We can control the very building blocks of reality – the atom and the human genome – but we can’t keep annoying people off our lawn?  “We can put a man on the moon, but we can’t _______.”  Fill in the blank. We’re supposed to be able to control the world around us.

But maybe certain problems aren’t quite like splitting an atom.  Sometimes the problem is getting people to see eye-to-eye who have previously insisted on merely splitting hairs.  And for that, you need more than an atom-splitter or “hair-splitting” of the sort usually on offer from the mainstream media and special-interest blogs.  You need a heart of the sort Christ recommends to us by means of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Can one imagine anything that this Samaritan man, setting out on his journey that morning, would have wished to encounter less than a half-dead Jew by the side of the road?  And yet, upon finding a man in need, he was faithful to the challenge God placed in his path.  There were a good number of things he might have complained about: the lack of safety upon the road, the fact that his extravagant taxes to the Roman authorities were not bringing about the promised results, the foolishness of the religious-political controversies between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Instead, he got off his a**, jumped down, nursed the man’s wounds, and journeyed to the next town with the wounded man on the back of the beast.

Randall B. Smith is Professor at the University of St. Thomas, where he has recently been appointed to the Scanlan Chair in Theology.
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (5)Add Comment
written by Carlos Caso-Rosendi, August 14, 2014
I hope my comment won't be found worthy of deletion...

A great essay, a great gift from Prof. Smith. I was blessed with the friendship of many real Christians who live the Gospel of Christ not only in word but in deed. I have also met many who "look the other way" and miss the opportunities that God puts before them every day. I try to be with the first group but I am no stranger to the second. Reading the life of Padre Pio today I was reminded of how many times I failed to love my neighbor. Now when it comes to correcting and complaining I don't miss much. The article by Prof. Smith was a good wake up call for me. I can guess that the years ahead are going to be filled with opportunities for Christians to shine. One of them will be to get things done where they need to be done without expecting "the government" or "the Church" to do the job.

This parable of the Lord is set as a hidden model of history. Jericho was the first city conquered by Joshua and Jerusalem was the last city conquered by David. There is a curse related to the first and a blessing to the latter just like Adam's curse leads eventually (blessed fault) to the greatest blessing: Christ. The Samaritan is Christ, the robbed Jew is Israel but also mankind left destitute by the violence of sin. Oil and wine bring to mind the Sacraments, the inn reminds us of the Church, and the "I will pay you when I come back" makes me think of the promise of Christ's return.

The Samaritan is a man of wealth, a free man bound to his neighbor by mercy but also by duty. We have here these United States, this Western Civilization, this Catholic Church. All of them beaten to a pulp by a powerful and wicked enemy. What are we going to do? Those of us who can must embrace this opportunity. Given to us in the form of trouble it is actually a treasure of grace. The mercy shown to us (we were given truth and a measure of prosperity) we have the duty to extend to others, some as despicable as the Jew must have been to the Samaritan.

We must ask ourselves "what I am going to do?" and not look the other way. Thank you Prof. Smith for a fine essay.
written by myshkin, August 14, 2014
Yes, obligations and all that. How about mentioning what the Roman Catholic Church asks of us, the corporal and spiritual works of mercy? As the Catechism states:

2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently. The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead. Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God.

Also, actually Hume's point was larger than Dr Smith states. Not just coinciding events but any events associated in any way were to be denied causal inferences. In so doing Hume made a simple, but crippling mistake. He conflated causal reasoning with deductive reasoning. Reasoning to causes *uses* deductive reasoning, but must go beyond it since it is making claims not about logical relationships, but about the real world. The ancient logicians were well aware that deductive reasoning was not causal reasoning (hence the classical Latin definition of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" as a fallacy). Hume just made a blunder in conflating the two.
written by pgepps, August 14, 2014
"Resentment is fostered by the illusion of control often provided by modern science and technology. We can control the very building blocks of reality – the atom and the human genome – but we can’t keep annoying people off our lawn? “We can put a man on the moon, but we can’t _______.” Fill in the blank. We’re supposed to be able to control the world around us."

I think this is a very profound insight. I struggle with *exactly* this issue, constantly. The sense that some improvement or correction *ought* to be possible, and therefore that I (or someone) *must* be obligated to do it--well, it's a truth wrapped up with an error, often, and I haven't found any general principles that clarify it for me. Attention to essences and causes, though, must surely be the way to improve on visceral commitments.

Thanks much!
written by Jorge, August 14, 2014
Excellent essay.

Don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. I remembered this phrase when reading a certain part of professor Smith's essay. Of course, the essay goes well beyond what the phrase implies.
written by Paul V, August 14, 2014
"Too many people think they have a right to complain, but not an obligation to help."

My Canadian government is taking almost half of my money. I do everything legally to get as much of it back as possible because I think that isn't right. Let me keep as much of my money as possible then I can do more to be The Good Samaritan and support the causes I believe The Holy Spirit wants me to support instead of the causes my government wants to support with my money.

I complain because people are down loading responsibilities on my shoulders but not giving me the power to meet these responsibilities, the down loaders still want the power.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters