Should we question someone's motive for working for a cause?

Should those who become advocates for a cause be criticized if they only embraced the cause because of a child or loved one?

A reader wants to know whether a friend’s newfound dedication to working for and getting others interested in working for the rights of children with a particular disability should be taken any less seriously because the friend never expressed any interest in that disability before discovering her child was among those who had it. “Wouldn’t her passion be more convincing if there weren't a clear self-interest involved?”

It's not unusual to read stories of people becoming active for a particular cause after they discover they have a personal experience with that cause. Sometimes these stories don’t involve disabilities. And sometimes the discovery results in someone doing a complete reversal in their views. There are plenty of stories of legislators who are adamant in their lack of support for same-sex marriage, for example, until they discover one of their adult children identifies as LGBTQ+ and in a loving relationship.

With support for those with a particular disability, it’s less often the case that someone is against supporting work for those with that disability. It’s far more common that the disability never crossed their mind until it affected them personally.

Does this mean we should discount their activity because they only became involved after discovering that a child or loved one could be among those helped by their work? No.

My brother-in-law lived with muscular dystrophy. Marrying into his family raised my awareness, but I was no less compassionate or caring than others who care about people with muscular dystrophy. I may not have lived with muscular dystrophy top of mind until I became a part of his life, but my concern about him and others with muscular dystrophy was no less valid even though my awareness wasn’t raised until I met and ultimately married into his family.

Similarly, if someone has a child with a medical condition that doesn’t get the type of attention or support that would be useful to improve that and other children’s life, the passion a parent has to work for more research or treatment to help those with the condition — including her child — should in no way be discounted. Working toward helping others who could benefit from the support is a good thing, regardless of how we arrive at the desire to do so.

There are plenty of causes to go around, and often, too few people to support them. If we start questioning the motivation of every person who wants to do something to help someone else, the best we can hope for is a free-floating cynicism. At worse, such attitudes can serve to disincentive people from helping when they can.

When someone discovers a cause about which they care deeply, regardless of how they arrived at that decision, the right thing is to let them. If it seems a cause we might want to help with as well, then we should have at it.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of "The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice," is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues. 

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com. 

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin

(c) 2023 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.