[Desk Column] Two Perspectives on Voluntary COVID-19 Donations

Here is a scale that measures gains and losses. On one side, there is a gain of 1 million won, and on the other side, a loss of 1 million won. What will happen to the scale? 1 It will balance. 2 It will tilt to one side. 1 is basic economic common sense. 2 is the psychology of those who break that common sense.

People react twice as sensitively to losses as they do to gains of the same amount. The pain of losing 1 million won is greater than the pleasure of gaining 1 million won. Therefore, the scale inevitably tilts toward the 'loss' side. Professor Daniel Kahneman received the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics for observing this psychology in his 'Prospect Theory.' To summarize Prospect Theory in one sentence: 'Losses weigh heavier than gains.'

The discussion about emergency disaster relief funds related to the novel coronavirus infection starts precisely at this point. The disaster relief fund, which escalated into a conflict between the ruling party and the government, was eventually settled on providing 1 million won to every citizen (based on a family of four). Initially, the ruling party planned to provide selective and differentiated payments to the bottom 70% income group, but they abruptly shifted to 100% coverage. In this process, the previous stance of 'considering fiscal burden' changed to the logic of 'universal support is necessary.' The opposition party also joined in. It was election season, and every vote counted. Perhaps both ruling and opposition parties felt this way: 'The 30% who do not receive 1 million won can determine the election outcome more than the 70% who do.' Ultimately, they weighed the loss of 30% more heavily than the gain of 70%.

From the public’s perspective, 'fiscal burden' is a distant issue, but 'universal support' is a close reality. Regardless of whether 1 million won is a lot or a little, selective support where some receive it and others are excluded can be unfamiliar and uncomfortable in itself. The moment one is excluded from the support target, it becomes a 'loss.' This is the justice inherent in universal support (or universal welfare).

Still, one question remains. Does just distribution truly mean giving the same amount to everyone? At this point, someone opposed the idea of 'equal distribution.' That person is the American philosopher John Rawls. He warned against 'utilitarianism,' which is the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and emphasized 'maximal care for the least advantaged.'

Suppose three companies, A, B, and C, divide their employees into three groups and give incentives. Company A distributes 90 in incentives equally as 30, 30, and 30. Company B distributes 150 as 40, 50, and 60, and Company C distributes 160 as 25, 35, and 100. Which company is the most just? According to John Rawls, the answer is Company B. This is because Company B’s least advantaged share (40) is greater than Company A’s (30) and Company C’s (25). Professor Kim Hyung-cheol of Yonsei University’s Department of Philosophy concluded in 'The Best Choice' as follows: "Company A pursues 'complete equality,' Company C pursues 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number,' while Company B practices 'maximum care for the least advantaged.'"

Of course, disaster relief funds and incentives cannot be equated. The former requires bearing fiscal burdens, while the latter depends on managerial decisions. Also, the former squeezes limited finances, while the latter shares abundant assets. However, from the recipient’s perspective, whether it is disaster relief or incentives, it is equally uncomfortable if one’s share is less than others’. This is a natural human instinct.

In that regard, what now deserves attention is the voluntary donation of disaster relief funds. Donating all or part of the disaster relief fund means a willingness to forgo gains and endure losses. This cannot simply be dismissed as the generosity or show-off of the wealthy, because, as repeatedly stated, losses weigh heavier than gains. Although the government introduced this as a last resort, voluntary donations have unexpectedly become a test. It weighs human nature against social responsibility. Which way will the scale tilt?

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.