3 ms·

You seem to think that the total amount of charitable donations is all important. More is better, seems to be your argument, regardless of where that money goes

You seem to think that the total amount of charitable donations is all important. More is better, seems to be your argument, regardless of where that money goes, where it comes from or what it is spent on. What if all that money went to a charity you disagree with, say one that promotes eugenics? My argument is: leave charitable giving to individuals - individuals can choose their own charities or not to give anything. That seems far more democratic to me. It may be that this will result in less charitable donations overall but at least the money will be going to organisations individuals support.

tptacek 15y ago
Startups aren't donating to charities that promote eugenics.
TomGullen 15y ago
Leaving charity solely to individuals would be a responsibility with dire consequences. Charities need money, and we all have a moral obligation to give that all of us including me fall far short of. Government giving to charity, business giving to charity is good and should be encouraged. If you work at a company that gives money to charity you can always find one that doesn't.
drumdance 15y ago
I'm not a huge fan of corporate giving, but the counter-argument is that when you have one big donor instead of a lot of little ones, and objectionable decisions by the company can be boycotted. For example, Coors used to give to a lot of right-wing organizations and also had a lot of anti-gay hiring practices. Gay organizations targetted them and eventually they not only stopped donating to those orgs, but they changed all their corporate policies.
- maratd 15y ago
  Wow. So essentially you're saying people are too stupid to know who to donate to, so instead, let's have large corporations do it. They can be manipulated by special interests for the betterment of society! I'll pass on that.
chc 15y ago
This is an individual choosing to give to charity. I am an individual, and I'm choosing to give a little bit of stock in my company to charity. So what's the problem?

tptacek 15y ago

Startups aren't donating to charities that promote eugenics.

TomGullen 15y ago

Leaving charity solely to individuals would be a responsibility with dire consequences. Charities need money, and we all have a moral obligation to give that all of us including me fall far short of. Government giving to charity, business giving to charity is good and should be encouraged. If you work at a company that gives money to charity you can always find one that doesn't.

drumdance 15y ago

I'm not a huge fan of corporate giving, but the counter-argument is that when you have one big donor instead of a lot of little ones, and objectionable decisions by the company can be boycotted. For example, Coors used to give to a lot of right-wing organizations and also had a lot of anti-gay hiring practices. Gay organizations targetted them and eventually they not only stopped donating to those orgs, but they changed all their corporate policies.

maratd 15y ago
Wow. So essentially you're saying people are too stupid to know who to donate to, so instead, let's have large corporations do it. They can be manipulated by special interests for the betterment of society! I'll pass on that.

chc 15y ago

This is an individual choosing to give to charity. I am an individual, and I'm choosing to give a little bit of stock in my company to charity. So what's the problem?