This doesn't do much for the common good though. Let's dive into Bentham and see how good this is. Obviously the hedonistic calculus is not completely numeric,

This doesn't do much for the common good though. Let's dive into Bentham and see how good this is. Obviously the hedonistic calculus is not completely numeric, but we can do some work here. Let's compare malaria nets with getting a poor person a job. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure? -- Well, many "common good" philanthropic causes deal with terrible diseases. That said, getting a job probably is better than not getting malaria. Passive vs active. Duration: How long will the pleasure last? -- Here, not getting malaria is obviously longer lasting than a job. Jobs go away. Malaria nets when properly utilized are pretty solid for the long term. Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur? -- Probably equal here. Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur? -- Probably equal here. Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind. -- This one is hardest to quantify. There's obviously a ratchet quality to someone experiencing success. Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind. --- Malaria nets DEFINITELY can win out here. See above notes re: firing. Extent: How many people will be affected? -- And here malaria nets take the cake and win the entire calculus. 20k invested in malaria nets will affect MANY more people than your hundred hours.