6 ms·

> Charities are often corrupt griftworks. It's hard to know which ones are and which ones aren't. 1. Could you quantify "often"? Are you suggesting at least 10

by yboris 4y ago

> Charities are often corrupt griftworks. It's hard to know which ones are and which ones aren't. 1. Could you quantify "often"? Are you suggesting at least 10%? If so, that's a bold empirical claim that needs justification. If it's under 10%, then giving $100, even when you know $10 goes to "waste" shouldn't be a deterrent. 2. It's not hard to find charities that are not corrupt (and most-importantly are cost-effective) with the money you give, look at this list of very thoroughly-vetted charities: https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities https://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bheadmaster 4y ago
I can't quantify "often" - that's the part of the problem. If I knew that, say, 90% of charities were actually sincere, then I could play the numbers game and know that 90% of the money given will go to those in need. But it could also be the other way around - 90% of charities could actually be fraudulent. If that kind of money went into the pockets of the very people who're making the problem worse (corrupt politicians and other powerful individuals who're destroying their countries), that would make charity a net-negative. There's just no way to know. Websites that act as arbiters of charity justice don't help either, for the same reason - who is verifying the verifiers? It seems to me that the most corrupt charities would be most motivated to boost their numbers on various vetting websites, while the legitimate ones would be too busy actually doing something to bother dealing with internet politics.
- yboris 4y ago
  I think your skepticism goes too far. If you sincerely would like to help through charitable donations, it would be enough to find one charity and give your money there -- you don't have to engage in the project of finding out what fraction of charities are doing good or bad. Have you looked at GiveWell's review process? What doubts do you have that the charities GiveWell recommends are close-to-impeccable? Are you suggesting the documentation of interviews, onsite visits, etc are not based on reality? To insist on principle without looking at how things are seems to be a disingenuous armchair philosophizing, rather than a desire to do any good.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    I think your skepticism doesn't go far enough. The fact that charity organizations are given holy status and exempted from skepticism actually gives greedy individuals more incentive to use them as a cover for money-grabbing schemes. The same reason Vatican is also a hotspot of corruption and crime. > To insist on principle without looking at how things are seems to be a disingenuous armchair philosophizing, rather than a desire to do any good. To insist that greed is not a powerful human motivator, much more powerful than altruism, is being naive.
    - yboris 4y ago
      I just have one question - have you looked at GiveWell and the type of work they are doing, or are you armchair philosophizing?
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        That is a loaded question and I will not answer it, as it demonstrates that you're discussing this in bad faith. You are implying that, if I haven't looked at the website you linked, I must be "armchair philosophizing" - there's no third option. If you rephrase that question without the false dichotomy, and preferably with an explanation what exact difference does it make whether or not I looked, I'll be glad to answer it.
  - citizenpaul 4y ago
    You are naive. I've known a number of people that have spent a good portion of their lives working in charities. They all have the same story. Living in near poverty themselves to help people in need. The one day they wake up and realize that the charity is not only taking advantage of them, but also exploiting the money they take even though they make it look good on paper. The problem with free anonymous money is that the temptation to grift it is just too high and eventually someone in power will succumb to the temptation. I encourage you to go to a charity event. Take note of something while you are there. How many beautiful women are around? I guarantee you it will be significantly higher than any normal place. Ask yourself why this is? There are a number of reasons but a big one is that many charities are simply vanity projects for bored housewives and daughters of rich men. (points at united way) Even if they do some good it is a highly diluted version of what it should be. The purpose is not aligned. If you really are a good person and not simply patting yourself on the back for the feel goods of dropping a $20 in the charity box. I encourage you to take a much deeper look into what charities really are and how much good they actually do. Maybe you just got lucky and got involved with a serious charity at one point in your life but they are not in the bigger picture as magnanimous on a whole. FYI you are probably not going to find real answers on the internet. Charities are acutely are aware of that public face.
lupire 4y ago
Malaria and worms and a few villages in Kenya aren't the only things that need helping.

by yboris 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bheadmaster 4y ago

I can't quantify "often" - that's the part of the problem. If I knew that, say, 90% of charities were actually sincere, then I could play the numbers game and know that 90% of the money given will go to those in need. But it could also be the other way around - 90% of charities could actually be fraudulent. If that kind of money went into the pockets of the very people who're making the problem worse (corrupt politicians and other powerful individuals who're destroying their countries), that would make charity a net-negative. There's just no way to know. Websites that act as arbiters of charity justice don't help either, for the same reason - who is verifying the verifiers? It seems to me that the most corrupt charities would be most motivated to boost their numbers on various vetting websites, while the legitimate ones would be too busy actually doing something to bother dealing with internet politics.

yboris 4y ago
I think your skepticism goes too far. If you sincerely would like to help through charitable donations, it would be enough to find one charity and give your money there -- you don't have to engage in the project of finding out what fraction of charities are doing good or bad. Have you looked at GiveWell's review process? What doubts do you have that the charities GiveWell recommends are close-to-impeccable? Are you suggesting the documentation of interviews, onsite visits, etc are not based on reality? To insist on principle without looking at how things are seems to be a disingenuous armchair philosophizing, rather than a desire to do any good.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  I think your skepticism doesn't go far enough. The fact that charity organizations are given holy status and exempted from skepticism actually gives greedy individuals more incentive to use them as a cover for money-grabbing schemes. The same reason Vatican is also a hotspot of corruption and crime. > To insist on principle without looking at how things are seems to be a disingenuous armchair philosophizing, rather than a desire to do any good. To insist that greed is not a powerful human motivator, much more powerful than altruism, is being naive.
  - yboris 4y ago
    I just have one question - have you looked at GiveWell and the type of work they are doing, or are you armchair philosophizing?
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      That is a loaded question and I will not answer it, as it demonstrates that you're discussing this in bad faith. You are implying that, if I haven't looked at the website you linked, I must be "armchair philosophizing" - there's no third option. If you rephrase that question without the false dichotomy, and preferably with an explanation what exact difference does it make whether or not I looked, I'll be glad to answer it.
- citizenpaul 4y ago
  You are naive. I've known a number of people that have spent a good portion of their lives working in charities. They all have the same story. Living in near poverty themselves to help people in need. The one day they wake up and realize that the charity is not only taking advantage of them, but also exploiting the money they take even though they make it look good on paper. The problem with free anonymous money is that the temptation to grift it is just too high and eventually someone in power will succumb to the temptation. I encourage you to go to a charity event. Take note of something while you are there. How many beautiful women are around? I guarantee you it will be significantly higher than any normal place. Ask yourself why this is? There are a number of reasons but a big one is that many charities are simply vanity projects for bored housewives and daughters of rich men. (points at united way) Even if they do some good it is a highly diluted version of what it should be. The purpose is not aligned. If you really are a good person and not simply patting yourself on the back for the feel goods of dropping a $20 in the charity box. I encourage you to take a much deeper look into what charities really are and how much good they actually do. Maybe you just got lucky and got involved with a serious charity at one point in your life but they are not in the bigger picture as magnanimous on a whole. FYI you are probably not going to find real answers on the internet. Charities are acutely are aware of that public face.

lupire 4y ago

Malaria and worms and a few villages in Kenya aren't the only things that need helping.