One can come up with an example that makes the same point I made before, but isn't 'two distinct acts'. Stabbing yourself in order to donate blood in person ver

One can come up with an example that makes the same point I made before, but isn't 'two distinct acts'. Stabbing yourself in order to donate blood in person versus doing it the usual needle-and-bag way, for example. My point is that arbitrarily adding costs to a given act doesn't make it better. Charity isn't good because it sucks for someone; it's good because it's good for someone. If you're giving your last $10, you're putting yourself in financial danger; you might need that money. The billionaire isn't in any danger from being $10 short. Thus, the first person is causing net harm to the world; the same $10 has been donated to the same charity, but the result is one person closer to penury. Whereas if the billionaire did it, that wouldn't happen. I don't know if this was intentional, but this implies a higher order magnitude of help. I would personally balk if I hear of a charity that donates only 50% of what they receive to the intended audience. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=28 http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&... Lots of charities do that. My main point is that judging charity by cost is dumb. It produces bad incentives. Arguably, those charities are superior to other charities, since they make it so expensive to help someone. To do $100 worth of good at the Disabled Veterans Associations, you need to donate nearly $10,000! Donating to a more efficient charity means you suffer less pain for a given amount of money making it to the end recipients. If costliness makes charities better, shouldn't we seek out the most inefficient possible charities? Why not?