Ricardo J Gonzalez for a Better America

NPR is holding a pledge drive right now, trying to raise funds for its operation. As it is mostly a listener supported station (they do receive a bit of government funding), they make pleas to reason and emotion to motivate their listeners to pledge. I enjoy NPR and I hope to one day be in a position to be able to donate. When they returned to their regular programming there was a spokesperson for Causes for Change International on Worldview. The organization works doing a variety of different community service projects in poor areas of Ecuador. As you would expect, Causes for Change was also making a plea for support. While the elements were similar to those on the NPR pledge drive, there was one definite difference: little white lies.


Chicago Public Radio tells you of the content it brings you; tells you their operating costs; points out the benefits of not only keeping them on the air, but of being a member ('Thank You' gifts and such). They plead their case openly and honestly, and know that the service they offer is worth while. When the people from Causes for Change plead they offer nothing in return but memories and satisfaction of helping others. While helping others may be a worthy cause, the problem comes from the form it is presented.

Among the various anecdotes she gave was a story describing the economic conditions of single mothers in Honduras. She related how many of them worked "80 hour weeks" to feed "sometimes six or more people". While this in itself isn't far fetched, she also said that many of these women survive on "no more than one tortilla a day for themselves". While I have not been there myself to confirm the story personally, there is an obvious problem with this claim. Looking at it simply mathematically: suppose that one of these "many women" being referred to was able to worth 80 hour weeks on 2000 many calories a day. According to this calorie counter, even the most calorie heavy tortilla only has about 170 calories. That leaves our hard working head of the family short 1830 calories a day, and at that rate, she will starve to death in about a month.

Obviously, the account was an exaggeration; a little white lie. But without the use of reason, the exaggeration would've remained uncovered. "How terrible", we're expected to say "that these women are starving when I have so much to eat". Yet I can't help but be insulted. The assumption behind the little white lie is that if you or I heard the truth, we'd be too selfish (or too stupid) to help. The complaint about Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" wasn't that his claims were untrue, but that by telling people the truth, they would cease their efforts to lead a more eco-friendly lifestyle.

Most of us recognize these as little white lies for what they are, yet we let them slide because "the ends justify the means". It's ok that they lied because it will help people. When the bum on the streets approaches us to tell his little white lie, most of us dismiss it and ignore him. When the beggars wear a suit, we praise them for their altruism.