Coronavirus and IPL

 

source: internet

Unprecedented times come with unimaginable challenges. The challenge that India is facing today is this pandemic. Research and academic works vis-a-vis the coronavirus pandemic are flooding. One debate that has still not been revived is the philosophical debate of morality, duty, and charity. With the increasing gravity of this pandemic, the authoritative direction by the general public to the affluent Indian is gaining momentum and that is to help the country financially. The recent target being the IPL which is happening in the middle of a health crisis. 

There is a grave problem that lies under the basic arguments against or favoring the IPL. Most people object to it because they think that the money spent on IPL should be spent on containing the virus and treating the people. This takes us to a deeper question: why should the players/or franchise pay? Are they obliged to pay I.e is it their duty or charity? Many people who oppose it must have been thinking about it in terms of duty. This question can further be divided into two separate questions. First, are they alone obliged to donate? If yes then why and if no then why not? Second, is every citizen of India, or for that matter the whole world obliged to donate or offer some kind of assistance? First settling the initial question of duty and charity. To answer these questions it is imperative to understand why people donate or help others(donating and helping are used in a synonymous manner here). There are various reasons for it. I take into consideration the two main reasons, one that it is an expression of power. One who donates is of course superior to the other person whom s/he is donating if not always then at least at that specification time and the second being the social norms and values. Through the social norms and religious ideas and values, it has been ingrained in us that helping others who are in suffering is a good thing. We ought to help others. So like Singer, I also assume that suffering and death from the lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. In that case, we ought to help those people. This settles the initial most question about duty and charity. People are suffering so it is our duty to help them out. It can not be called charity because charity is something good to do but not wrong not to do. So it is not charity it is a moral duty but moral duties are not binding. They are not enforceable by any law or authority. These moral duties are similar to the fundamental duties enshrined in our constitution: non-enforceable. But what moral duty does is that it creates moral pressure and a conflict arises in the human. So without extending further we can conclude that IPL has the moral duty to help the patients falling sick because of the coronavirus. Now comes the first question: are they alone obliged to help or donate because societal norms of helping the sufferers as a duty are equally applicable to everyone? This can be understood by understanding the rationale behind progressive taxes. In a progressive tax system, the rich pay more and the poor less I.e. the rate of tax increases with the increase in income. Since the rich can contribute more they are obliged to pay more. The marginal utility of the rich is less than the poor. The same reason can also be applied in the case of donation. Those who earn more should donate more. This takes us to the conclusion that both the rich and the poor are obliged to help(monetarily) as per their income. This can also be understood through Singer's view he says "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it." Here "anything of comparable moral importance" may vary from person to person. For some people buying a car can be more important than saving someone's life that also when the sufferer isn't directly related to them. That's why even though 2 lakh people die every year due to inadequate access to safe water, 79,000 people in India died because of Tuberculosis in 2019 alone, almost the same number of people die every year because of TB and many more deaths. Now should everyone not do marriage or enjoy birthday parties, should they not play sports, should the government not spend on games because of these large numbers of deaths of fellow Indians. This shows how “comparable moral importance” is very much subjective. This answers our next question: why only donate when people are dying because of coronavirus, why not when they die because of malaria or TB or road accidents? This leaves us to the conclusion that donating to others or asking others to donate because one thinks that another person has more money is disagreeable. Because the amount which we think is more may not be enough for that person. Ultimately one needs a house, bread, and clothes to survive. These are the only fundamental needs a human has. Other than that it can be abundant for someone else but not for who possesses it. Because if you take anything other than shelter, bread, and cloth as abundance then every person above the poverty line has the capacity to donate at least some amount of money without sacrificing "anything of comparable moral importance". Now the argument against the criticism of IPL can be that movies, music, and games are a passion for some people mostly those who participate in them but a source of enjoyment and pressure releasing mechanism for the most number of people. Almost 40 crore people watched IPL in 2020. Is there any source of enjoyment that is capable of bringing this number of people in front of one screen at one time? When this large chunk of people watch cricket what they do most is that they discuss it Which takes them away from their usual sufferings and relieves their brain at least for some time. I.e. It is also a source of mental relaxation even more than movies or music for the most number of people especially in India. There can be structural problems and corruption in the league no denying that but that is another matter of discussion. 

So “asking” anyone else to donate because you think that the other person has more is a flawed argument. You can request as per your understanding of that person having so much money. In addition to this, telling others to stop playing because people are dying is delusional as lakhs of people die due to lack of adequate health infrastructure in this world every year. In other words a significant number of people die every minute. This means if you tend to follow that same argument too seriously you would hardly get a moment to enjoy your own life.