Our title may seem anomalous given our unequivocal conviction in the value of inquiry, and our endorsement of challenging questions of settled views. Thus, an explanation is in order.

We use “unasked” and “unstated” to frame our subject, which we intend unequivocally as a question to ourselves and (hesitantly) to others. The question might be stated as follows: what is the impact (if any) of a discussion of (questioning of) a subject on the attitudes of participants towards the subject discussed (questioned)? The question needs to be more specific: are there subjects the questioning of which subverts the very objectives which the questioning sought to promote?

Clearly, we can anticipate cause and effect challenges of sorts: directional causation (whether x causes y or y causes x); correlation (whether x and y go together but only because z causes each of them); and absence of causation (whether x and y are independent of each other and of a common variable and just so happen, as it were, to be present together).

Clearly too we can anticipate normative questions: even if the questioning of a subject impacts the subject then is the impact helpful, useful, or counterproductive? The answer presupposes an objective, a desired outcome, as measured against a ratings matrix. Put differently, if we discuss a subject with the specific intention to promote the subject then we defeat our purpose if the fact of the discussion subverts the subject (as measure in accordance with our ratings matrix). Put this way, the causal and normative questions loom large even if we assume the sufficiency of our ratings matrix.

Moreover, we face methodological choices, which in turn raise questions: perhaps the counterproductive outcome on our subject of the questioning of the subject reflects a poorly phrased question, or a question situated in a context that corrodes the question and therefore corrodes the subject questioned. For example, perhaps a question posed to another in private is asked, and answered, differently than the same question posed, in the same cadence, etc., but in public. Perhaps the asking of a question to one person corrodes the subject questioned, whereas the question asked of another leaves the subject unaffected. Surely, some of these challenges are easily identified and resolved. And others will escape identification and resolution.

Our observations below will not seek to identify and disentangle, let alone answer, the above sorts of questions or to sketch out criteria to guide evaluation of methodological choices. Rather, we will pose a question, through an example, and encourage consideration of the question by our readers.

With that all said: how do we value, and measure the value of, our acts of charity? Does a person who works at a shelter on Saturday for 8 hours provide a greater sum of valued charity than a person who works and is taxed, with the tax in an amount available for government expenditure to purchase 8 hours of service to the charity? How do we ensure that we take the measure in full and identify not only what is a cost of what but what is a benefit of what, directly and indirectly?

Or to quote Jane Austen, who gets to the point indirectly:

“How horrible it is to have so many people killed! And what a blessing that one cares for none of them!”

Ah, but how is care measured? If we measure care by the provision of personal service at the charity – through direct and voluntary personal engagememt, then might we stifle the impulse to donate cold hard – but ever so critical – cash by the executive who stays at his desk and leaves to others to engage at shelters, in whatever form and venue they take? Perhaps, at the end, all we may conclude is that the questioning of a subject that we seek to promote sometimes subverts the subject and sometimes promotes the subject and sometimes has no impact on the subject. Whether we can identify the outcome in advance and whether we have the conviction that we have identified it correctly, raise questions that may best be stated expressly and answers that may best be tendered aloud.