4 ms·

It's kind of a weird escalation -- steps 8->2 incrementally make sense (the more anonymized you are, the 'better'). But then the difference between step 2 and s

It's kind of a weird escalation -- steps 8->2 incrementally make sense (the more anonymized you are, the 'better'). But then the difference between step 2 and step 1 is totally different, the distinction is no longer anonymity, but some measure of efficacy of the support.

devcpp 6y ago
Back in Maimonides' time it would be difficult to provide things other than a lump sum in an anonymous manner. If you employ someone, teach them a job or give them a loan they'll get to know you. So I think step 1 drops anonymity for long-term purpose.
lr4444lr 6y ago
I think the point is that the sustainability of preventing poverty and making someone self sufficient is nuanced and not just a simple transfer funds. It's such an improvement over the other donor -> recipient charity which _don't_ fix dependency that the anonymization and cheerfulness of the exchange doesn't even matter: fixing the core problem permanently is a higher goal by kind, not just degree.
names_are_hard 6y ago
Maybe the axis is not anonymity per se but the dignity preserved by the recipient. Anonymity is not the goal, it's a means to an end. And providing employment achieves that end even better than anonymity does. In this light the lower levels also make sense, each progressive level allows the recipient to feel less guilty (the donor is not annoyed that they have to help, or doesn't even need to be asked, etc). The really interesting bit here is that the levels are not about how much the donor sacrifices but how good the recipient feels.
- audiometry 6y ago
  Excellent idea! I think you explained it.
- mdlman 6y ago
  That's an interesting point. To add to it slightly, maybe the goal is to create a healthier community. Without the guilt or annoyance you mention, it is possible for both the donor and the recipient to maintain a positive relationship going forward (less of an ongoing power dynamic or bitterness). My guess would be that when these levels developed, most giving was within a close knit community.

devcpp 6y ago

Back in Maimonides' time it would be difficult to provide things other than a lump sum in an anonymous manner. If you employ someone, teach them a job or give them a loan they'll get to know you. So I think step 1 drops anonymity for long-term purpose.

lr4444lr 6y ago

I think the point is that the sustainability of preventing poverty and making someone self sufficient is nuanced and not just a simple transfer funds. It's such an improvement over the other donor -> recipient charity which _don't_ fix dependency that the anonymization and cheerfulness of the exchange doesn't even matter: fixing the core problem permanently is a higher goal by kind, not just degree.

names_are_hard 6y ago

Maybe the axis is not anonymity per se but the dignity preserved by the recipient. Anonymity is not the goal, it's a means to an end. And providing employment achieves that end even better than anonymity does. In this light the lower levels also make sense, each progressive level allows the recipient to feel less guilty (the donor is not annoyed that they have to help, or doesn't even need to be asked, etc). The really interesting bit here is that the levels are not about how much the donor sacrifices but how good the recipient feels.

audiometry 6y ago
Excellent idea! I think you explained it.
mdlman 6y ago
That's an interesting point. To add to it slightly, maybe the goal is to create a healthier community. Without the guilt or annoyance you mention, it is possible for both the donor and the recipient to maintain a positive relationship going forward (less of an ongoing power dynamic or bitterness). My guess would be that when these levels developed, most giving was within a close knit community.