Scarcity and Funding the Arts

I, for one, am a proponent of the fine arts. Painting, theater, dance, sculpture, poetry; all of it adds to the fullness of life and understanding. Of course, they all seem to be constantly short of funds, which they probably are. However, the same thing is said by research scientists, wildlife advocates, public school teachers, intelligence agents, indigent care clinics, and a long list of groups clamoring for more (usually government, usually federal) funding. This is a finite resource. If there is, in fact, a moral imperative to address some of these things, what would be its resolution? If there’s a collective (i.e. governmental) obligation to support some of these things, how would the balance be struck in a world (as all worlds) of scarcity? If there are resources that can’t be left to individual consciences to dispose of, then there are some hard moral questions that need to be asked about funding the arts:

How can we fund the arts as long as anyone doesn’t have basic necessities?

At what point does improving the lives of the secure take precedence over providing for the underprivileged? does their gratitude matter? does their voting record?

What point constitutes saturation of necessities among the population? should anything beyond this point be redirected to the rest of the world? to the arts?

How much military risk reduction (surplus defense spending) is worth a really good symphony? a really good play? a bad one?

Is it more important to fund a cure for AIDS or a substitute for oil, and can funds be taken from either for the arts?

What kind of calculus do you use to determine how to balance immediate physical needs, basic science research, and the psychological benefits of the arts?

Is concentration of wealth acceptable if used to invest in new technology (creating further general benefits?) What if it’s used instead to endow a museum?


If we’re going to go down this road, these are the kind of things that will have to be addressed.