3 ms·

I'd argue there's something to be gained though for directly helping your neighbor vs. donating to charity. When you directly help your neighbor (anonymously or

by umvi 4y ago

I'd argue there's something to be gained though for directly helping your neighbor vs. donating to charity. When you directly help your neighbor (anonymously or not), there's a human element there that uplifts and enriches the lives of both parties that is largely absent when the help is in the form of an impersonal check in the mail from some organization. When I've done this (personally gone out of my way to help an individual monetarily or otherwise) I've found it increases my empathy and desire to serve others more than having money auto withdrawn from my bank account annually to a charitable organization (which I also do). So I guess what I'm saying is... why not both? Donate to charitable organizations, but not exclusively. Also go out of your way to (anonymously or not) do charitable things to individuals.

whimsicalism 4y ago
> So I guess what I'm saying is... why not both? Donate to charitable organizations, but not exclusively. Also go out of your way to (anonymously or not) do charitable things to individuals. I think this is hard for monetary assistance where there really is a direct tradeoff. It's hard to say well I'll keep this $1000 to help someone I find individually when those $1000 instead donated to a faceless charity would probably save another persons life.
- umvi 4y ago
  I think equating dollars to lives is too utilitarian a take to be useful IMHO. The goal of charity could be so much more than "lives saved (globally)". It could also be "lives improved (locally)" which cascades into "societies improved (locally)" which further cascades until the effects of local acts of love are far reaching and impact cities, state, and countries. If you don't know an individual who needs the $1000, then sure, donate to charity. But not all charity has to be in the form of large cash gifts and not all charity recipients have to be cancer patients on the verge of death. Sometimes being charitable to individuals is as simple as taking out a coworker or neighbor to lunch and just talking to them. Lots of people suffer from loneliness, depression, and things other than cancer and would benefit enormously from someone going out of their way and showing an act of love to them.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Right. I agree in the cases where monetary assistance are not involved. > I think equating dollars to lives is too utilitarian a take to be useful IMHO. The goal of charity could be so much more than "lives saved". It could be "lives improved" which cascades into "societies improved". Sure, but I guess I think "life saved" is probably the extreme case of life improved.
Graziano_M 4y ago
I agree! I am not so utilitarian that I say to the homeless, "Sorry I can't give you a dollar, it would better serve those who need malaria medicine" :D. There's something to be said about helping those around you directly as a way to build a better local community. Especially when you can help 'for free' (e.g. by helping someone with a flat, as I mentioned). Now, that said, if we are talking about giving out $10'000, and we're sort of encouraging more to do it (by sharing how we donate), at that magnitude and scale I think it would be better if we encouraged people to donate more effectively.

by umvi 4y ago

whimsicalism 4y ago

> So I guess what I'm saying is... why not both? Donate to charitable organizations, but not exclusively. Also go out of your way to (anonymously or not) do charitable things to individuals. I think this is hard for monetary assistance where there really is a direct tradeoff. It's hard to say well I'll keep this $1000 to help someone I find individually when those $1000 instead donated to a faceless charity would probably save another persons life.

umvi 4y ago
I think equating dollars to lives is too utilitarian a take to be useful IMHO. The goal of charity could be so much more than "lives saved (globally)". It could also be "lives improved (locally)" which cascades into "societies improved (locally)" which further cascades until the effects of local acts of love are far reaching and impact cities, state, and countries. If you don't know an individual who needs the $1000, then sure, donate to charity. But not all charity has to be in the form of large cash gifts and not all charity recipients have to be cancer patients on the verge of death. Sometimes being charitable to individuals is as simple as taking out a coworker or neighbor to lunch and just talking to them. Lots of people suffer from loneliness, depression, and things other than cancer and would benefit enormously from someone going out of their way and showing an act of love to them.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Right. I agree in the cases where monetary assistance are not involved. > I think equating dollars to lives is too utilitarian a take to be useful IMHO. The goal of charity could be so much more than "lives saved". It could be "lives improved" which cascades into "societies improved". Sure, but I guess I think "life saved" is probably the extreme case of life improved.

Graziano_M 4y ago

I agree! I am not so utilitarian that I say to the homeless, "Sorry I can't give you a dollar, it would better serve those who need malaria medicine" :D. There's something to be said about helping those around you directly as a way to build a better local community. Especially when you can help 'for free' (e.g. by helping someone with a flat, as I mentioned). Now, that said, if we are talking about giving out $10'000, and we're sort of encouraging more to do it (by sharing how we donate), at that magnitude and scale I think it would be better if we encouraged people to donate more effectively.