Digital Dissenter

Online activism is often charged with making things too easy for people. Most commentators seem to want to cling to a notion of traditional activism as something that requires people to get their hands dirty, to put in the hours screaming the odds outside the headquarters of multinationals and to actually put a bit of sweat blood and tears into a cause. Being able to contribute to a cause by just a few clicks of a mouse just doesn’t seem to qualify as what many of would still like to believe activism should be.

But so what? Is it really that detrimental to activism as a whole to have some people support a cause without ever leaving their homes or their office?


I would like to argue that people need to actually relax a bit. Stop being so hard on modern activism and take note of the many, extremely easy, possibilities that it allows for involvement – direct and indirect.

The Life You Can Save
Peter Singer, a renowned philosopher who specialises in applied ethics, has published many papers and books on the topic of world poverty and social responsibility. In his most recent book, “The Life You Can Save” he makes a very strong argument that it is an unambiguous moral imperative for citizens of developed countries to give more to charitable causes that help the poor and needy. He states: “If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it; absolute poverty is bad; there is some poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance; therefore we ought to prevent some absolute poverty.”

Some refute the argument by raising concerns about the problems of ensuring that money goes to where it is most needed and used effectively. Singer however dismisses this claim since these practical difficulties don’t undermine his original conclusion (that people should make a much greater effort to reduce poverty).

The perfect platform
I would contend that the ease of online activism, or ‘clicktivism’ as some would dismissively call it, actually offers the ideal platform from which people can take Singer’s claims to heart, and follow through. It really does not require any sacrifice of anything of even vague comparable significance to enter one’s credit card details into PayPal to make a donation.

Charities are increasingly seeing the value of increasing the ease with which people can make donations. People who have the money usually don’t have the time to actually visit a charity and make a donation in person, or even to send a cheque in the post. Others may come across a cause they support, but as soon as they encounter any red-tape in having to support it, they will simply abandon their altruistic inclinations.

Make the circle bigger
Another issue that feeds into this is what Singer refers to as the expanding circle of compassion. According to Singer: “At the end of the nineteenth century WH Lecky wrote of human concern as an expanding circle which begins with the individual, then embraces the family and ‘soon the circle... includes first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity, and finally, its influence is felt in the dealings of man [sic] with the animal world’.”

On this basis the majority of people who are probably reading this would already be in at least the penultimate stage of Lecky’s expanding circle. Singer notes however, that there is for many people “a gap between acknowledging what we ought to do, and doing it”.

Charity begins with your mouse
In modern society however, it is now possible to speak of global responsibility and global community. We are more interconnected than ever before. For much of our history however, we were only able to affect the people in our immediate vicinity. The sheer time it would take for communication and transport negated the value of trying to make a difference to victims of floods, wars or massacres taking place on the other side of the world. By the time any aid could reach anyone it would have been too late. Thus as Singer rightly points out, the idea that ‘charity begins at home’ made sense, because it was only ‘at home’ that one could ensure that your charity would make a difference.

Instant communication has been pivotal in changing this. Now an audience of millions of people can watch a video, hear a podcast, see photos of people struggling in an area struck by famine. The majority of the people who are able to see this also have the means to help the people (or animals) they see on their screens. Each of us can, at least in principle, pull out a credit card, use our online banking facilities or pick up the phone and make a donation to the aid organisations that are on the ground in the places where we can’t be.

So relish the ease with which you can fulfil your modern day moral imperative to help those in need. In fact why don’t you relish it right now and send aid to the organisations that are on the ground in Pakistan trying to pick up the pieces for the many people and animals that are currently suffering in the aftermath of the floods.