I wish this article had any actual data to back up it's claims. Rather what I see is a bunch of moral anecdotes (not even anecdotes about economic/social effect

I wish this article had any actual data to back up it's claims. Rather what I see is a bunch of moral anecdotes (not even anecdotes about economic/social effects of these actions). The author claims that it is morally wrong to spend more flying to give charity then you spend on the charity itself. Then claims it is morally wrong to give handouts (which somewhat complicates the pervious moral belief, since you shouldn't give handouts what does it matter if potential handouts are wasted flying?) Then claims it is morally wrong to make a profit attempting to do good. And finally that it is morally wrong to have consumerism masking as charity (despite the fact that the author claims that may forms of charity are morally bankrupt anyway). I am absolutely aware that there are many cases of 'charity' that have very negative consequences. But I don't actually care about 'morality' at all, what I care about is measuring positive or negative consequences. I'll even take a qualitative anecdote (ie "here's a story of how this person's life became worse because of Tom's shoes"). After all not all experiences fit nicely into a spreadsheet. Reasoning through moral appeal only makes any sense at all if everyone shares your same moral system as a basis. For example it is legitimate to make moral arguments to members of a religious group you belong to that all share the same moral beliefs and assumptions, that's in part what theology is. There is absolutely no substance to this piece other than the author espousing their moral system, which, at least from the information presented, don't sound any more founded on reality that moral beliefs of purchases of Tom's shoes.