You're not making any relevant arguments, just stating your personal position and with a condescending tone at that. > (A) Put my life potentially at risk and

You're not making any relevant arguments, just stating your personal position and with a condescending tone at that. > (A) Put my life potentially at risk and go into the burning building to drag that one person out and save their life. If I die while trying to save that person, then that means my charitable giving stops. > Or I can (B) definitely not risk my life to save that person, therefore guaranteeing - at least for now - that I can continue to make charitable donations into the future, possibly saving a much larger number of lives. > If you take a detached/theoretical view of this situation, then (B) seems like the better choice in the long run. I will benefit more people. > But it also means I make the choice to stand there and watch that real person die when I could have done something about it. > And I wouldn't be able to do that. I would do A every day of the week and sleep like a baby every following night, knowing that I'll be safe and sound tomorrow to support my loved ones. You're welcome to do B if you want to, but you yourself acknowledged that it's not the choice that benefits more people in the long run, i.e. the more emotional rather than logically optimal choice. Hence why I said you're not making relevant arguments, just stating that you would do things differently and that you do so out of emotion rather than a logical reason. If you have a logical reason why giving money today is better than letting it compound and then giving more tomorrow, then I'd be interested in hearing it. But if I'm the kind of person to go with A 10/10 times, I think you can imagine I'm not very interested in emotional appeals.