The Food Bank

This ethical case study reviews the argument between Michelle, the director of a neighbourhood house, and her associate, Tim. Michelle, who is responsible for the food bank, has stopped accepting donations with low nutritive value, which Tim believes to be a mistake because it has led to a drastic decline in the number of donations they receive. In this case study, I will discuss some of the values that may be motivating them and suggest a solution to their problem.

Michelle and Tim seem to be motivated by altruistic characteristics, and have the best interests of the community that relies on the food bank in mind. Both are generous people who are concerned with the well-being of those in the community who rely on the food bank. However, they differ in their primary concerns. Michelle, who has noticed that the health of the people who regularly use the food bank has declined over the years, decides to refuse donations that low in nutrients and explain to the donors why their donations are being refused. Enforcing this measure shows Michelle’s courageousness and willingness to stand up for what she believes is right, since people would have likely continued to donate unhealthy food if she didn’t refuse them. Conversely, Tim emphasizes the importance of moderation, knowing that turning away all these donations will make people less likely to donate, meaning that more people may go hungry.

Many of the ancient greek philosophers strongly promoted these virtues, proffering the idea that living in accordance to these values would lead to a happier life. Aristotle in particular, believed that happiness was the highest attainable good for a human because it is pursued as an end in itself and not for other things. He also claimed that part of happiness, or living well, was the ability to use reason well in our everyday lives (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics I). This idea falls in line with the argument between Michelle and Tim. Despite their differences, their actions and beliefs are still rationally motivated with good intentions, leading me to conclude that there is a possible compromise.

First we should note what Michelle and Tim have in common. They both want the best for those who rely on the food bank and care about the health of those people (just in different ways). Michelle most likely only began to refuse donations because a course of action less extreme might not persuade people to donate more nutritious items, rendering her efforts pointless. Tim recognizes Michelle’s generosity but argues that refusing to accept these unhealthy donations is leading to lower quantities of food, meaning that there might not be enough for everyone or will force them to ration their food. Both perspectives are understandable and have clearly been rationally thought out based on what each individual thinks is best for the people using the food bank. Since their values overlap, I argue that they both want the same thing, but have different ways of expressing their concerns. This makes it easier to adjudicate their argument.

Since their most important considerations are the people who rely on the food bank, the priority should be to ask those people what they think. Michelle and Tim can arrange for a poll, or something more informal such as simply asking for opinions, to see whether they think the quantity or quality of the food being donated matters more. Michelle and Tim should be truthful and let the people know that denying all unhealthy donations has led to a decrease in the amount of food donated and let them decide if they would prefer to have more food or nutritious food.

In addition to this, Michelle should stop refusing all donations that are nutrient poor and distinguish between what items she believes are very detrimental to health, somewhat detrimental, and slightly detrimental. Michelle should stop accepting donations that have extremely low nutritive value, accept a limited number of donations that she deems to be somewhat detrimental to health, and accept the ones that are only slightly detrimental. She can also make flyers or find another method to let donators know which food items they are in need of, asking them to donate healthier foods. Although these aren’t perfect ideas, it would be a good start to finding a balance between providing people with nutritive food and having the quantity to feed enough people.

My last idea to find a solution that satisfies both Michelle and Tim’s values would be to accept monetary donations and build a community garden. With enough volunteers and knowledge (although this would definitely require more work) this would allow them to provide healthy, sustainable food to the people who use the food bank. Provided that they care for the plants correctly, this would be a cost-effective and environmentally-friendly way to supply people with an abundant amount of very healthy and freshly grown food. As Michelle and Tim are both generous people, there are likely many other solutions to their problem; I have merely listed the ones I think would be the most efficient and effective.

  • References: Griffin, Michael. “Plato and Aristotle.” Athenian Thought: A Reader. 2014

I very recently wrote this ethical case study for my CLST 211 class at UBC. Writing this case study allowed me to demonstrate just a fraction of what I learned over the semester and apply it in a real-world setting. I think that utilizing the concepts that I’ve learned in this way is useful to proving how generalizable philosophical ideas can be (in this case, mediating an argument between two people). Although my solution may not be perfect, I’m glad I have the ability to present the skills I have learned in CLST in this way.