3 ms·

This is something I often ponder, and there are even more obvious targets for the sort of argument you're making. I typically think of the ASPCA -- I think the

This is something I often ponder, and there are even more obvious targets for the sort of argument you're making. I typically think of the ASPCA -- I think the ASPCA is wonderful, and I love animals, but should anyone be donating money to ease the lives of animals when there are countless people, as you say, "dying of want"? More realistically, though, I think we should understand that different people have different philanthropic interests. Maybe by offering a new cause we expand the total amount of money that people give, instead of taking money from the causes you deem to be more worthy? And isn't there an issue of autonomy here? I suspect we agree that nobody has to give money to anyone at all (except through taxes), so why not allow them the freedom to give in the way they find most meaningful, even if it does not have the greatest 'objective' impact?

falsestprophet 12y ago
"I think we should understand that different people have different philanthropic interests." Yes, but they're wrong. Imagine seeing a hungry dog on the street. Going over to feed it is a virtuous thing to be sure. But, to step over and ignore someone choking to death on your way to the dog is not. "give in the way they find most meaningful, even if it does not have the greatest 'objective' impact?" It's easy to be fooled in our first world fantasy lives, but we are really living a world of men, women and children dying for want of sometimes as few as US$1000. Good is hardly good enough. Something will surely fill every economic niche. If there are people who want to "donate" to the opera or dogs or cats or toys for tots, then some organization will find a way to serve that niche. But, I think it is useful to oppose these goofball "charities" and educate people about lives they can save. The stakes are very high. It is a matter of life and death.
- therobot24 12y ago
  You appear to have a strong opinion of which charities are more 'meaningful' for a donation. Out of curiosity, which specifically make your list?

falsestprophet 12y ago

"I think we should understand that different people have different philanthropic interests." Yes, but they're wrong. Imagine seeing a hungry dog on the street. Going over to feed it is a virtuous thing to be sure. But, to step over and ignore someone choking to death on your way to the dog is not. "give in the way they find most meaningful, even if it does not have the greatest 'objective' impact?" It's easy to be fooled in our first world fantasy lives, but we are really living a world of men, women and children dying for want of sometimes as few as US$1000. Good is hardly good enough. Something will surely fill every economic niche. If there are people who want to "donate" to the opera or dogs or cats or toys for tots, then some organization will find a way to serve that niche. But, I think it is useful to oppose these goofball "charities" and educate people about lives they can save. The stakes are very high. It is a matter of life and death.

therobot24 12y ago
You appear to have a strong opinion of which charities are more 'meaningful' for a donation. Out of curiosity, which specifically make your list?