The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: nawhite on September 27, 2017, 06:52:47 AM
-
Edit: added quotes from the others who were discussing this in the other thread since I can't move comments like a mod.
In the "Epic FU Stories" thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/epic-fu-money-stories/1800/) there is a discussion about charity giving that I wanted to break out to discuss more.
GettingClose was offered a raise but turned it down so the company could offer it to her lower paid co-worker. Then this happened:
I was trying to convey that this wasn't that generous an action - New Guy was buying a house and had a combined household income of probably $70k. Also, I have some opinions about fairness/equality in compensation, and it would have probably cost me considerably in the area of guilt (difficult to monetize) to have someone working the same hours as me for less than 1/3 the pay. It's my personal cutoff for whatever reason - I can justify 3x the salary due to my greater education, experience, innate ability, whatever - but not more than that. Need to put my money where my mouth is to feel OK about myself. I hope this makes sense.
Not downplaying this at all, I'm impressed you donated your money to some other cause, but just curious why you see that guy as more deserving of your money than people in other countries who don't make 1/3rd what you do but 1/3000th? ~20% of the worlds population makes less than $1/day. Sure you don't need it, but if you're going to donate your money to a charity, I think you should do it purposely in a way that best matches with your values rather than to some guy at work you feel bad for.
a) "charity starts at home" principle
b) I make other donations - but (despite the wording of point "a") there's a difference between charity and justice. Can't articulate it very well; need to think more first.
c) I work for a single company and have a single team, and this was my single chance to address income inequality in a meaningful way. This particular instance had a name and a face, and rightly or wrongly, that matters.
It's not wrong. It matters. Gotta say, that other comment made my blood boil.
Charity begins at home, indeed.
Yup - seems like you acted exactly in line with your values regarding income inequality. And hopefully in a way that will make a long-term difference to the organisation. Good on you.
My comments elicited a strong response from a number of people on that thread which is part of the reason I'm breaking this discussion out into its own thread.
-
Personally I've never understood the charity starts at home mantra. I've always been a "do the most good with each dollar" kind of person so I wanted to hear more about people's opinions on this particular giving instance and why it was a good thing vs donating that money every year to an organization that can help more people.
-
Personally I've never understood the charity starts at home mantra. I've always been a "do the most good with each dollar" kind of person so I wanted to hear more about people's opinions on this particular giving instance and why it was a good thing vs donating that money every year to an organization that can help more people.
I see "charity starts at home" more as an admonishment not to give away your money instead of paying your bills. We've all see the articles and cartoons about old ladies eating cat food while supporting a televangelist.
One could also take "home" to mean in your neighborhood first (as opposed to those who want to rush to give to people/causes in other countries while ignoring the need at their own doorstep). If you want to give something to others, what is the greatest need in your "home"? Start there.
-
I read GettingClose's explanation behind that admirable decision as a big part of it was a comparison between two people working at the same place, with probably slightly similar tasks. Also as living according to ones values, rather than charity. An internal reasoning, as opposed to an external one.
Im glad you started this thread tough, and i'm eager to see the responses. We have a situation during the last couple of years where large amount of romani come here and beg. They have a difficult situation, and is in need of a better life, no argument there. But im perplexed why a lot of people around me donate to the beggars, simply because they are here. To me that's a decision ruled by emotions rather than utility, and I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation.
-
Im glad you started this thread tough, and i'm eager to see the responses. We have a situation during the last couple of years where large amount of romani come here and beg. They have a difficult situation, and is in need of a better life, no argument there. But im perplexed why a lot of people around me donate to the beggars, simply because they are here. To me that's a decision ruled by emotions rather than utility, and I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation.
Most decisions people make are emotional not utility, especially for charitable giving. Look at all the sad children and puppies. If it didn't work, they wouldn't use it.
-
The real purpose of charity is to make us feel better about ourselves. Helping those we care more about (people we know, children, victims of natural disasters, etc.) makes the vast majority of people feel better than giving to a cause that saves or improves statistically more faceless lives.
-
I read GettingClose's explanation behind that admirable decision as a big part of it was a comparison between two people working at the same place, with probably slightly similar tasks. Also as living according to ones values, rather than charity. An internal reasoning, as opposed to an external one.
This is a pretty good lay description of the difference between two of the major ethical theories in philosophy: virtue ethics and utilitarianism. Virtue ethics says one ought (roughly) to live "according to one's values", basically pursue virtue rather than make decisions soley based on their consequences. Many theories of virtue ethics would advocate for doing the right thing with regards to your co-worker and the immediate decision there, even if the consequences of that decision for the rest of the world are less positive than taking the money and donating it in the optimal way.
On the other hand, a utilitarian would say that it's unethical to deprive more people of more benefits just so that you can have the warm fuzzy feeling of acting in what you feel to be a virtuous manner. Stands of principle, loyalty, friendship, love, or whatever, which are not globally the most efficient way to do the most good for the most people, are unethical in this stance. Of course this creates tension when you ask questions like "should I pay for my kid to eat more nutritious food than starving people on the other side of the world", or "if I approach a burning building and I can either save 10 orphans or a very expensive painting which I could then resell, which should I save".
One nice essay from a philosopher on the conflict between virtue ethics is found below. Note this is written from a Stoic perspective: Stoicism is an ancient Greek school of virtue ethic philosophy which has seen a modern renovation/resurgence:
https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/stoic-advice-effective-altruism/
-
The real purpose of charity is to make us feel better about ourselves.
Are you describing how you think the world works (in which case I agree)? Or are you describing some deeper truth that you think ought to govern our behavior (in which case I strongly disagree)?
-
Personally I've never understood the charity starts at home mantra. I've always been a "do the most good with each dollar" kind of person so I wanted to hear more about people's opinions on this particular giving instance and why it was a good thing vs donating that money every year to an organization that can help more people.
It's part of my moral code to donate 10% of my net income to charity. It ain't chump change - at this point in my life, 10% is approaching very close to 5 figures. All of my donations are national, and a huge portion are to orgs within my zipcode. I started this post thinking I'd write passionate and compelling justification of my choice, but I got tired trying to formulate the words. Do you truly believe my donations are somehow unethical, or that I'm personally killing a wormy child because my monies go locally?
-
I see "Charity starts at home" like "Secure your own oxygen mask before assisting others". Giving generously to people halfway around the world while one's family or friends are facing destitution* could get you anything from a raised eyebrow to full-on criticism in certain circles.
Ultimately, comparison is the thief of joy. Criticizing someone for not being generous in the right way strikes me as judgmental and unnecessarily harsh.
*The usual caveats apply about spendypants who may need some lessons from the School of Hard Knocks.
-
Interesting take. Do you then believe there is only one charity per purpose that we should all give to because math says so? If I give to an animal charity am I wasting my money because it isn't going to humans? If I give to poor kids' education am I wasting it because I'm not giving it to people who can't afford meals?
I see "Charity starts at home" like "Secure your own oxygen mask before assisting others".
Exactly my thoughts on this. What's wrong with giving to my community and trying to make it better? Am I suppose to ignore problems at home because people in Africa also have problems?
-
I think trying to determine where to give money to charity is, based on current charitable needs in the world compared to the ability most have to give, necessarily a choice in what "matters most" to the people giving. There are hundreds of thousands of government certified charities in the US alone. If you had a million dollar budget for charity each year, you couldn't give $1 to each of the various charities in the world.
As such, for people of limited means, a choice must be made about what "matters most" to them. Is it donating to their neighborhood charities that help feed and clothe the poor and destitute in their community? Is it donating to organizations that are trying to find the cures/treatments for medical conditions they or a loved one suffer from? Is it donating money to make life more comfortable for a stranger halfway around the world? Is it some other moral cause covered by another charity? Maybe some combination of the above? If the person who suffers from that terrible, but rare, disease chooses to donate to feed someone on another continent instead of donate money towards curing their disease, how much longer is a cure put off and how many people suffer as a result vs how many people suffer from the food they didn't pay to have donated?
Where to be charitable seems to consist of philosophical questions that likely have no "right" or "wrong" answer in my opinion. As such, making the "selfish" choices seems to be the most personally rewarding (choosing to try and cure diseases that impact my life, or helping those nearby as I can) given my current situation so that's what I do. Whether it's the "most good" I could do with my money doesn't concern me as I know it is "good" being done with that money.
-
Interesting take. Do you then believe there is only one charity per purpose that we should all give to because math says so? If I give to an animal charity am I wasting my money because it isn't going to humans? If I give to poor kids' education am I wasting it because I'm not giving it to people who can't afford meals?
I see "Charity starts at home" like "Secure your own oxygen mask before assisting others".
Exactly my thoughts on this. What's wrong with giving to my community and trying to make it better? Am I suppose to ignore problems at home because people in Africa also have problems?
This is my thought as well. When all of the major problems are "fixed" in America; homeless people, starving animals, veterans without proper medical care/food/housing, communities without clean drinking water, unemployment, schools with limited funds to buy supplies to properly educate, etc, then I'll focus my efforts on a cause abroad. I'm 100% in agreement in that charity starts a home; I see it as our country is home and that is my first priority. Charity after all is a choice and I CHOOSE where my funds go. Vote with your dollar.
-
I thought the poster of the original story was acting in line with their personal values. IIRC, they were not treating this as a charitable contribution.That angle was floated by commenter on the original thread.
The first OP was simply doing what they felt was right. That's why the criticism made my blood boil.
Simply put, there is not enough money to cure all the planet's ills and there never will be as long as fallible humans run the place. I said "at home" when I really meant "around you". If you see a need and can fill it, you should, without fear of excoriation by Internet Strangers.
Now that we're FI and one of us is RE, we tithe mostly in our community. Our actions ripple out from the place where we can see the rock hit the water. For example: Recently, a local group we support took up a collection for Hurricane Relief during one of their programs, at the point where they usually make an "ask" for themselves. The charity they chose is not one we support. I wrote a check directly to that charity, not because I support the second group, but because I support the (completely unrelated) local group. Ripples.
-
Im glad you started this thread tough, and i'm eager to see the responses. We have a situation during the last couple of years where large amount of romani come here and beg. They have a difficult situation, and is in need of a better life, no argument there. But im perplexed why a lot of people around me donate to the beggars, simply because they are here. To me that's a decision ruled by emotions rather than utility, and I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation.
Most decisions people make are emotional not utility, especially for charitable giving. Look at all the sad children and puppies. If it didn't work, they wouldn't use it.
I agree, apart from that most decisions would be emotional. Although it would be a pretty neat life in the short run. Hello skipping work, drinking beer on a week day and overfeeding the cat!
-
The real purpose of charity is to make us feel better about ourselves.
Are you describing how you think the world works (in which case I agree)? Or are you describing some deeper truth that you think ought to govern our behavior (in which case I strongly disagree)?
I was only meaning to describe reality as I've observed it, but I'm not convinced either way about how it "should be". I'm not sure I like the purely utilitarian world where not one penny is spent to cure heart disease as long as cancer is killing more people or no one helps rape victims as long as there's anything they can do to help people being murdered on the other side of the world.
On the other hand, donating money for your neighbor kid's European summer vacation while people are starving is also fairly perverse. I definitely don't have the answer on what "should be".
-
I didn't realize "GiveWell" was actually a thing when I commented. I just Googled it. From their self-admittedly out-of-date website:
"We don't believe any amount of analysis can objectively determine whether saving a life in Africa is more valuable than helping a person in New York become self-supporting. It ultimately comes down to the donor's personal values."
Google-FU also turned up this interesting article:
http://mssv.net/2008/01/02/dont-support-givewell/
Yes, it's old and the author's best points are buried at the bottom of the article, but it proves that no system or "Philosophy" of charitable giving is perfect.
-
Some great responses here. It sounds like there is a spectrum of good per dollar and emotional closeness. So you can either get more good per dollar, or more emotional closeness/pleasure but usually not both. The engineering mind/mustacian in me wants to find a way to maximize both good per dollar and pleasure from giving.
Fortunately, my pleasure from giving definitely suffers from hedonic adaptation. I get about the same amount of pleasure giving $100 to a friend as I do giving $1000 to a friend. I get about the same pleasure giving $20 to a national charity as I do from giving $50. Thus if I'm trying to maximize both pleasure from giving and world good per dollar, I should donate some small amount to things on the local end of the spectrum to make myself feel good, and then I should donate every dollar beyond that to the place where those dollars will do the most good.
MMM describes this in http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/10/26/notes-on-giving-away-100000/ and one of the best resources I've found for evaluating world good per dollar donated is http://www.givewell.org/
Given that mindset, the donation of $5000/year to a co-worker seems to not maximize the pleasure they could get from giving, while also not doing the most world good.
-
I didn't realize "GiveWell" was actually a thing when I commented. I just Googled it. From their self-admittedly out-of-date website:
"We don't believe any amount of analysis can objectively determine whether saving a life in Africa is more valuable than helping a person in New York become self-supporting. It ultimately comes down to the donor's personal values."
Google-FU also turned up this interesting article:
http://mssv.net/2008/01/02/dont-support-givewell/
Yes, it's old and the author's best points are buried at the bottom of the article, but it proves that no system or "Philosophy" of charitable giving is perfect.
I'm confused by the article. A person associated with givewell posted on a forum in response to the question "what websites evaluate charities" saying "GiveWell evaluates charities." And now the article's author is upset that the person didn't say "I'm associated with GiveWell." Is that it or is there something more sinister I'm completely missing?
As is, I don't see how this article has anything to do with the topic at hand. It doesn't refute GiveWell's mission at all or provide any details on why it's Philosophy of giving is flawed.
-
Apparently the question, answer and criticism were all written by the same person from GiveWell, who had created two accounts, i.e. it was "fake". \O_O/. I'm not going to name the person; it's in the linked article if anyone's interested.
After reading this, I actually looked at your stats, nawhite. I'm reasonably certain that you're not that person, but a person of conscience, just as the OP on that other thread.
I'm happy you moved the discussion, but neutral, at best, about shouting out GiveWell, however subtly it was done.
Is it possible to encourage charitable giving of all kinds* and leave it at that?
*Mooching friends or relatives excluded, obviously.
-
I thought the poster of the original story was acting in line with their personal values. IIRC, they were not treating this as a charitable contribution.That angle was floated by commenter on the original thread.
The first OP was simply doing what they felt was right. That's why the criticism made my blood boil.
Simply put, there is not enough money to cure all the planet's ills and there never will be as long as fallible humans run the place. I said "at home" when I really meant "around you". If you see a need and can fill it, you should, without fear of excoriation by Internet Strangers.
Now that we're FI and one of us is RE, we tithe mostly in our community. Our actions ripple out from the place where we can see the rock hit the water. For example: Recently, a local group we support took up a collection for Hurricane Relief during one of their programs, at the point where they usually make an "ask" for themselves. The charity they chose is not one we support. I wrote a check directly to that charity, not because I support the second group, but because I support the (completely unrelated) local group. Ripples.
The criticism is OK; it's a legitimate question. You're correct in your understanding: transferring my raise to someone else didn't appear to me as "charity" - more as making things the way they should be in my own small sphere of influence. It was meant an illustration of how having "FU money" frees one to pursue [whatever] and not be in position of being forced to accept employers' restrictions/demands.
Along these lines - one could ask if it's OK to leave an inheritance to kids, no matter how much they're struggling, if there are starving children in Bangladesh. Or if it's even OK to stop earning as much as possible for as long as possible! These kind of questions worry me.
Jeffrey Sachs book The End of Poverty http://jeffsachs.org/books/the-end-of-poverty/ is interesting in this regard.
-
I thought the poster of the original story was acting in line with their personal values. IIRC, they were not treating this as a charitable contribution.That angle was floated by commenter on the original thread.
The first OP was simply doing what they felt was right. That's why the criticism made my blood boil.
Simply put, there is not enough money to cure all the planet's ills and there never will be as long as fallible humans run the place. I said "at home" when I really meant "around you". If you see a need and can fill it, you should, without fear of excoriation by Internet Strangers.
Now that we're FI and one of us is RE, we tithe mostly in our community. Our actions ripple out from the place where we can see the rock hit the water. For example: Recently, a local group we support took up a collection for Hurricane Relief during one of their programs, at the point where they usually make an "ask" for themselves. The charity they chose is not one we support. I wrote a check directly to that charity, not because I support the second group, but because I support the (completely unrelated) local group. Ripples.
The criticism is OK; it's a legitimate question. You're correct in your understanding: transferring my raise to someone else didn't appear to me as "charity" - more as making things the way they should be in my own small sphere of influence. It was meant an illustration of how having "FU money" frees one to pursue [whatever] and not be in position of being forced to accept employers' restrictions/demands.
Along these lines - one could ask if it's OK to leave an inheritance to kids, no matter how much they're struggling, if there are starving children in Bangladesh. Or if it's even OK to stop earning as much as possible for as long as possible! These kind of questions worry me.
Jeffrey Sachs book The End of Poverty http://jeffsachs.org/books/the-end-of-poverty/ is interesting in this regard.
Me too, because when do they stop?
"You have enough. You should stop work and let someone who NEEDS the job take that job."
"Why did you retire? If you can still work but don't need the money, you should work and just give it all to charity."
"You should donate the money you spend on beer, wine, coffee and salmon to charity, those are unnecessary expenses."
-
I read GettingClose's explanation behind that admirable decision as a big part of it was a comparison between two people working at the same place, with probably slightly similar tasks. Also as living according to ones values, rather than charity. An internal reasoning, as opposed to an external one.
This is a pretty good lay description of the difference between two of the major ethical theories in philosophy: virtue ethics and utilitarianism. Virtue ethics says one ought (roughly) to live "according to one's values", basically pursue virtue rather than make decisions soley based on their consequences. Many theories of virtue ethics would advocate for doing the right thing with regards to your co-worker and the immediate decision there, even if the consequences of that decision for the rest of the world are less positive than taking the money and donating it in the optimal way.
On the other hand, a utilitarian would say that it's unethical to deprive more people of more benefits just so that you can have the warm fuzzy feeling of acting in what you feel to be a virtuous manner. Stands of principle, loyalty, friendship, love, or whatever, which are not globally the most efficient way to do the most good for the most people, are unethical in this stance. Of course this creates tension when you ask questions like "should I pay for my kid to eat more nutritious food than starving people on the other side of the world", or "if I approach a burning building and I can either save 10 orphans or a very expensive painting which I could then resell, which should I save".
One nice essay from a philosopher on the conflict between virtue ethics is found below. Note this is written from a Stoic perspective: Stoicism is an ancient Greek school of virtue ethic philosophy which has seen a modern renovation/resurgence:
https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/stoic-advice-effective-altruism/
Interesting, JCfire. Were you the person who recommended The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy elsewhere on this forum? If so, we are listening to it on Audible with great interest.
-
The criticism is OK; it's a legitimate question. You're correct in your understanding: transferring my raise to someone else didn't appear to me as "charity" - more as making things the way they should be in my own small sphere of influence. It was meant an illustration of how having "FU money" frees one to pursue [whatever] and not be in position of being forced to accept employers' restrictions/demands.
Along these lines - one could ask if it's OK to leave an inheritance to kids, no matter how much they're struggling, if there are starving children in Bangladesh. Or if it's even OK to stop earning as much as possible for as long as possible! These kind of questions worry me.
Jeffrey Sachs book The End of Poverty http://jeffsachs.org/books/the-end-of-poverty/ is interesting in this regard.
I guess I fall back to the mindset I mentioned above of maximizing personal happiness while also maximizing good in the world. The key is understanding that personal happiness is affected by diminishing marginal utility.
So will I get some happiness from leaving an inheritance to kids? Sure. Will I get the same amount of happiness leaving them $100,000 as I would from leaving them $1 million? Maybe. Take that into account when you determine your numbers and recognize where your personal tipping point is so that you don't waste money on something that won't make you happier. Same thing applies to work. Do I get more happiness from stopping work earlier? Absolutely, that happiness can have personal value. Should I maybe work an extra year so I can give 10% of my spending to charity? Maybe that's a trade off I should think about.
All I'm saying is do the value calculation and if giving $5000 every year to some random guy at work really gives you significantly more happiness than giving them a $1000 bonus to help with the house then good for you. Just recognize that it's a trade off and each additional dollar you're giving away for happiness is buying you less happiness than the dollar before it. At some point, I'd hope doing good in the world would be a better buy.
-
I don't think the original act was "charity". I think it was making a statement to the company about excessive pay differences for doing the same job. I think it was an excellent use of that money.
On charity begins at home... I've recently switched my charitable giving from an international orphan charity to a national homelessness charity. It was a really hard decision to make, but I encounter homeless people daily and almost never give them money. I feel extremely sorry for them, and homelessness is an issue I care about a lot. After some agonising, I decided that I wanted to do something to help them and I was not about to start giving them cash so I would donate to a charity that helps them instead. I prefer to do all my giving to a single charity as a direct debit to help them plan with a minimum of admin hassle (I presume the admin for a £10 donation and a £100 donation are similar, so would rather make one £100 than 10 £10 donations). My money presumably doesn't go as far here as it does in a developing country, but it feels like the right thing to do.
-
Maybe "charity starts at home" just recognizes the "selfish" component of every charitable act. If I give my child a new car, no one think of that as charity, but I gave away resources that I could have used on myself personally on someone else. That someone else just happens to be someone whose happiness, welfare, etc, is particularly valuable to me. Given away your raise to someone at your work that basically does your same job and makes less is perhaps further removed from your selfish circle of interest than your child, but closer than some random homeless dude in your town, which is closer than some starving child in another country (unless your particular interests re-sort that priority). People who think people in general suck and animals are cute and innocent will chose to give there "selfishly".
What I find more interesting is when governments follow these same traits....e.g. don't solve hunger before spending money on art galleries, etc, but then again this is probably just a proportional division of the selfish interests of its people.
-
What about donations to help meet 1-time needs? My kid's music teacher has adopted a middle school in Houston, and is raising $ to help replace their music and instruments. It's meaningful to the kids taking music at middle school here, and should be a 1-time need.
(She's doing it via "penny wars", which is brilliant: each grade has a huge jar, they get credited for the value of pennies, bills, and checks in their jar. They get dinged the value of silver coins in their jar. The winning grade gets an award at the end. Watching the kids strategize is awesome!)
This isn't displacing donations we make to other places (in fact, it's probably supplanting a couple of lattes and maybe a family outing for ice cream) so it's no entirely germane, but this seems to be a different category of donation? (And it's neither "at home" nor "far, far away", so I don't know how it fits in, really.)
I think y'all are drawing a distinction that doesn't exist: I can recognize that my town needs more affordable housing and the food pantry needs support and the school district needs more $ at the same time as I can see that MSF needs additional funding and I want to support women in determining what happens to their own bodies everywhere, locally, nationally, and internationally. It means my $ get a bit spread out but also that we get to sit down and figure out how to support our values. My values say that wilderness and human lives are a higher priority then dog rescues, but that's what this process is about -- if your values are different, you get to decide how to donate/spend your own $$.
-
Honestly, I think the actual phrase "charity begins at home" means "don't be a jerk to those around you but think you're awesome just because you donate to starving Africans".
-
Maybe "charity starts at home" just recognizes the "selfish" component of every charitable act. If I give my child a new car, no one think of that as charity, but I gave away resources that I could have used on myself personally on someone else. That someone else just happens to be someone whose happiness, welfare, etc, is particularly valuable to me. Given away your raise to someone at your work that basically does your same job and makes less is perhaps further removed from your selfish circle of interest than your child, but closer than some random homeless dude in your town, which is closer than some starving child in another country (unless your particular interests re-sort that priority). People who think people in general suck and animals are cute and innocent will chose to give there "selfishly".
What I find more interesting is when governments follow these same traits....e.g. don't solve hunger before spending money on art galleries, etc, but then again this is probably just a proportional division of the selfish interests of its people.
Giving to your own child is not charity. You brought them into this world and have a degree of responsibility to teach them how to be self-sufficient citizens. Keeping them on perpetual parental life support is not doing them any favors.
I have no idea why you so strongly link acting charitably with being "selfish" - Why the quotes, for that matter? In fact, I find your whole argument confusing and...well, I'll just stop at confusing.
-
I read GettingClose's explanation behind that admirable decision as a big part of it was a comparison between two people working at the same place, with probably slightly similar tasks. Also as living according to ones values, rather than charity. An internal reasoning, as opposed to an external one.
This is a pretty good lay description of the difference between two of the major ethical theories in philosophy: virtue ethics and utilitarianism. Virtue ethics says one ought (roughly) to live "according to one's values", basically pursue virtue rather than make decisions soley based on their consequences. Many theories of virtue ethics would advocate for doing the right thing with regards to your co-worker and the immediate decision there, even if the consequences of that decision for the rest of the world are less positive than taking the money and donating it in the optimal way.
On the other hand, a utilitarian would say that it's unethical to deprive more people of more benefits just so that you can have the warm fuzzy feeling of acting in what you feel to be a virtuous manner. Stands of principle, loyalty, friendship, love, or whatever, which are not globally the most efficient way to do the most good for the most people, are unethical in this stance. Of course this creates tension when you ask questions like "should I pay for my kid to eat more nutritious food than starving people on the other side of the world", or "if I approach a burning building and I can either save 10 orphans or a very expensive painting which I could then resell, which should I save".
One nice essay from a philosopher on the conflict between virtue ethics is found below. Note this is written from a Stoic perspective: Stoicism is an ancient Greek school of virtue ethic philosophy which has seen a modern renovation/resurgence:
https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/stoic-advice-effective-altruism/
Interesting, JCfire. Were you the person who recommended The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy elsewhere on this forum? If so, we are listening to it on Audible with great interest.
I was not, and I actually have not read that book. From a brief description though it does sound consistent with the broad strokes of the modern adaptation of Stoicism that I described.
-
And furthermore, why is "charity" a separate type of action from doing whatever you think is right in your sphere of influence? Generally, I think we separate it out so that we can better live with the fact that there is so much abject misery in the world (and to a lesser degree in our country, in our city, etc) that we are doing little or nothing to abate, while still feeling like we are all "good people".
I think that a starving child that happens to live far away from me has just as much moral worth as a child that happens to live near me. I don't understand how people can see it any other way honestly. And if you believe that to be true, it has profound ethical implications.
-
[quote author=JCfire link=topic=79545.msg1713976#msg1713976 date=
I think that a starving child that happens to live far away from me has just as much moral worth as a child that happens to live near me. I don't understand how people can see it any other way honestly. And if you believe that to be true, it has profound ethical implications.
[/quote]
Honestly, I do believe that. But I am flawed and limited and I cannot live my life in genuine harmony with that belief. It is too hard. I don't think that makes me a *bad* person exactly - just a person. But I recognise that I am not doing what I truly ought to do.
-
If anyone is interested in this topic, and I don't see it raised yet in this thread, The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer offers and excellent and thorough analysis of these questions - why do we tend to give more to people closer to us, in our own families, social circles, or countries? It may be human nature to provide for those who we can relate to emotionally, and to people we can see, especially if we believe nobody else will help them. He says the factors of human nature that typically prevent people from donating to faraway causes are:
- if there is no identifiable victim: it's easier to help the one little girl who fell down a well vs. hundreds of thousands of faceless starving refugees
- parochialism: we only tend to care about what we can see, either through social connections, or on TV. We also don't feel as though our lives have anything to do with those of starving children overseas and therefore we don't owe them anything (which Singer suggests is not the case.)
- futility: when millions of people are starving, our donations don't seem to matter as they seem like drops in the ocean
- diffusion of responsibility: there are other, richer people who can help solve the problem of world poverty, so why should I do anything
- sense of fairness: if my neighbour and friends are all out having vacations and eating at fancy restaurants and I'm forgoing these things to send money to starving children, then I may start to feel resentful
So, that's human nature, but he asks is human nature always right or good or even logical? He offers a logical argument on why we ought to save lives of the people most in need, even if we can't see them. Our money goes much farther in places where people live on less than $1 a day than in the first world where we have the infrastructure to provide the basic necessities for our poorest poor.
He mentions GiveWell in the book quite often. Note that GiveWell itself is not a charity, but it is an organization that sort of audits charities to find the ones that are the most efficient and impactful with their funding. Singer seems to recommend Oxfam as well as others - there's a list of his recommended charities here : https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/best-charities
(I just happen to be reading the book right now - was looking to start a book review discussion about it because it's really shifting my thinking a lot on this topic.)
-
I'm trying to give money directly to relief in Puerto Rico right now. I was able to PayPal money for direct relief for the Virgin Islands. Unfortunately the contact was in Puerto Rico helping the VI. Now he's in Tampa, FL trying to get aid to PR. They were using private vessels with no cost for transportation, the vessel owners donated time and fuel themselves.
-
I always thought "charity begins at home" was a reference to teaching your kids about charity. If you teach them your values and how that can make an impact, it should influence them throughout their lifetime.
-
In reading about saving lives in the poorest countries (where a little money can make a huge difference) - I find the notion of charitable giving far more motivating (in terms of not spending money on stupid stuff) than saving for my own retirement. I don't mind working, and have realized that I'm not in a huge rush to quit. The more I learn about charitable giving, and the more I think about it, the more meaningful it seems to me to a) keep working and b) spend less money on things I don't need. (I heard about the Singer book via arebelspy on this forum and am so glad to be reading it.)
I used to feel helpless because I had no money and felt like life was weighing on me, and I had little control. Saving and investing has made me feel more in control of my own life, but now I feel another weight of responsibility to help and make a difference. I watch / read the news, and have been to third and second world countries, so am aware of how most of the world lives. I often think of The Hunger Games, and the ridiculous lives of the elite class (I saw the first movie years ago so I don't remember what they're all called). It's an exaggerated version of real life, as sci fi often is, and it illustrates the disparity really well. The lives and choices we have here in first world countries would appear ridiculous to most people on the planet. Here we have a billion choices of what sort of cookies to buy, and what colour to dye our hair, where to go on our next vacation, do I buy this car or that car, sparkly makeup or matte, this marble countertop or quartz, etc. All sorts of material choices and decisions and thoughts that would seem insane to people who are trying to pull together enough to feed their children.
In terms of saving money - nothing is more motivating (to me) than the question, should this money go towards some frivolous want, or could it help save someone's life, or at least alter it for the better?
-
I have strong views on charity. If you're going to get offended at something I say, or take it personally, don't read further. If you can understand reasonable people have different views, shrug, and move on, feel free to proceed.
I almost commented in that thread too, but didn't want to start a fight.
I agree with the OP. That was a terrible use of money compared to what it could have done. Inefficient charity is not much better than no charity at all, and it makes the person doing it feel good, so they do less than they might have otherwise.
I'd rather the person in that thread take the 5k raise, donate 1k to an overseas effective charity and blow the other 4k than give all 5k to a different white collar professional (whereby all 5k of it likely gets blown--it's extremely unlikely that person donates >20%). That would have been a far more effective use of the money (ignoring the fact that they could have donated 2, 3, or even the whole 5k).
I think charity starts at home is *. act locally, *. I think most volunteering is *. I think almost all domestic giving is **.
*weird adding an asterisk when I'm using them to censor. the footnote I wanted to add is that i do give domestically to help protect people's rights. aclu. planned parenthood. eff.** but for stuff like food, or housing no. the amount of food or housing anyone here in the states can access compared to other countries is crazy. we need more support for mentally ill in this country, and i think our government should do much more to support people in that situation. we need more of a social safety net overall, and we need health care for all. but charity dollars should go to helping those who need it most. and that's not anyone in pretty much any first world country.
**and I acknowledge it's probably immoral for me to prioritize the "rights" of people in first world countries over the lives of people in undeveloped countries. my donating to aclu, planned parenthood, eff is a less efficient use of the money, and it just makes me feel good. i try not to think about it, because i'm an immoral person, and thinking about it might make me redirect that money to better causes, and i just don't want to. pretty disturbing.
human life is worthwhile, full stop, period. valuing some lives more than others is pretty sick, and then morally feeling good while doing so, even worse. the difference in the amount of quality life hours you can provide for $1000 in the US versus in africa is astounding. and choosing to say 'fuck those guys because they aren't in geographic proximity to what i call home, due to the random nature of having been born or moved here" is terrible.
yes, this applies to you, people in this thread (i only skimmed it, so i don't even remember who said what) who donate locally, volunteer locally, and do nothing overseas. i think that's a damn shame.
to be clear: i'm in no position to judge, and i'm not judging. i'm as flawed as they come. like i said, i donate where i shouldn't. i'm retired early, rather than working full time to donate more. how sick is it that i'm SO MUCH spending time on one individual (my daughter) each day, when i could be earning money and giving that to save so many lives? it'd fucked up, really. so i donate some money, and try to earn some more with side gigs to donate, and maybe at some point i'll go back just to earn to gibe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give), but for now? * selfish asshole. all that to say, i'm not looking down on those people who aren't helping those who need it most. i'm saying that they aren't doing the moral choice. even if they feel good about it.
The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer is one of the best books I've ever read. Everyone should read it. Especially if you disagree with what I've posted.
-
I have strong views on charity. If you're going to get offended at something I say, or take it personally, don't read further. If you can understand reasonable people have different views, shrug, and move on, feel free to proceed.
I almost commented in that thread too, but didn't want to start a fight.
I agree with the OP. That was a terrible use of money compared to what it could have done. Inefficient charity is not much better than no charity at all, and it makes the person doing it feel good, so they do less than they might have otherwise.
I'd rather the person in that thread take the 5k raise, donate 1k to an overseas effective charity and blow the other 4k than give all 5k to a different white collar professional (whereby all 5k of it likely gets blown--it's extremely unlikely that person donates >20%). That would have been a far more effective use of the money (ignoring the fact that they could have donated 2, 3, or even the whole 5k).
I think charity starts at home is *. act locally, *. I think most volunteering is *. I think almost all domestic giving is **.
*weird adding an asterisk when I'm using them to censor. the footnote I wanted to add is that i do give domestically to help protect people's rights. aclu. planned parenthood. eff.** but for stuff like food, or housing no. the amount of food or housing anyone here in the states can access compared to other countries is crazy. we need more support for mentally ill in this country, and i think our government should do much more to support people in that situation. we need more of a social safety net overall, and we need health care for all. but charity dollars should go to helping those who need it most. and that's not anyone in pretty much any first world country.
**and I acknowledge it's probably immoral for me to prioritize the "rights" of people in first world countries over the lives of people in undeveloped countries. my donating to aclu, planned parenthood, eff is a less efficient use of the money, and it just makes me feel good. i try not to think about it, because i'm an immoral person, and thinking about it might make me redirect that money to better causes, and i just don't want to. pretty disturbing.
human life is worthwhile, full stop, period. valuing some lives more than others is pretty sick, and then morally feeling good while doing so, even worse. the difference in the amount of quality life hours you can provide for $1000 in the US versus in africa is astounding. and choosing to say 'fuck those guys because they aren't in geographic proximity to what i call home, due to the random nature of having been born or moved here" is terrible.
yes, this applies to you, people in this thread (i only skimmed it, so i don't even remember who said what) who donate locally, volunteer locally, and do nothing overseas. i think that's a damn shame.
to be clear: i'm in no position to judge, and i'm not judging. i'm as flawed as they come. like i said, i donate where i shouldn't. i'm retired early, rather than working full time to donate more. how sick is it that i'm SO MUCH spending time on one individual (my daughter) each day, when i could be earning money and giving that to save so many lives? it'd fucked up, really. so i donate some money, and try to earn some more with side gigs to donate, and maybe at some point i'll go back just to earn to gibe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give), but for now? * selfish asshole. all that to say, i'm not looking down on those people who aren't helping those who need it most. i'm saying that they aren't doing the moral choice. even if they feel good about it.
The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer is one of the best books I've ever read. Everyone should read it. Especially if you disagree with what I've posted.
I agree with this point of view, and am equally flawed in my giving. I need to look into some efficient overseas charities.
-
I mostly agree with the concepts of Peter Singer and The Life You Can Save, though I haven't actually read it. But I don't think it is immoral to give locally either. I hope to do both, though I give more locally now.
To me, giving locally is about maintaining the liberty and freedom of the US so that we can continue to be in a position to help others. If our democracy fails, because too many people here don't have enough food to eat or don't have civil rights, then no one here can help third world countries. (I get that this is complex, and many really have way more than we need, but there are plenty of people struggling in our own country).
Third world countries are complex. Offering food in third world countries sometimes does as much harm as good, for a variety of reasons. They need government stability, and creative technologies, and to get rid of dictators, all of which my donation to Children Intl does not help.
But I think the fact that we are struggling with this concept is a good thing overall. Far better than debating between the Lexus or the Mercedes!
-
There's a lot that I don't have answers to when it comes to charity and morality, but I call bullshit on:
Inefficient charity is not much better than no charity at all...
Following this logic, we should all stop giving to any charity immediately until we find the single most efficient use of our charity dollars/time. That is simply ridiculous. Even if donating $x to Africa could save 100 lives and donating that money to a local rights organization only saves one person from being falsely imprisoned for half their life, the latter is still far, far better than doing nothing at all.
-
Agreed. Well put. Esp that last point: what good is sending a bunch of rice and beans somewhere if it's all immediately confiscated by the local warlord/dictator? Law & order is vital.
Do you all remember the SNL skit where Phil Hartman played Bill Clinton impersonating a Somali warlord at a McDonald's in DC?
-
<snip>
human life is worthwhile, full stop, period. valuing some lives more than others is pretty sick, and then morally feeling good while doing so, even worse. the difference in the amount of quality life hours you can provide for $1000 in the US versus in africa is astounding. and choosing to say 'fuck those guys because they aren't in geographic proximity to what i call home, due to the random nature of having been born or moved here" is terrible.
OK, I'll let my local food bank know that, along with the otherwise-disengaged teenagers who are staying in school due to additional donations I make to support programs that provide motivation via soccer teams. And the Women's Health center, where I supply $ for additional BC costs for low income women, because the damn state won't pay for that. Sorry, guys -- all my $ is now going to overseas causes! Uh, not.
That actually sounded more confrontational then I mean. I generally agree, but I don't think there's an exact equivalence between a life here and elsewhere. And I think supporting causes like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood is important because as a country we can set an example. And I support schools (mostly, but not entirely, by volunteering) because everyone should be able to math and read and write and think clearly, damnit! (I'd like everyone to be able to do statistics, too...) That last one might be a little self-serving -- I want my kids to grow up into a country where the voting public is at least basically educated.
FWIW, we divide up our donation $ into Local, National, and International piles. I think this reflects our feeling that those donations aren't really comparable. Hungry children in my town (whom it costs relatively more to feed) aren't helped by supporting international relief efforts. Trying to support sane local and congressional candidates around the US may make for a better tomorrow for everyone, but may not save as many lives as mosquito nets. (Unless they can prevent a nuclear or conventional war between madmen.) We still think it's important!
The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer is one of the best books I've ever read. Everyone should read it. Especially if you disagree with what I've posted.
I'll add it to my reading list. Frankly, if you recommend it, I'm curious.
-
The difference between "selfish" and "self-interested"
We are all self-interested, in that we act in a way that we believe will maximise our own well-being/happiness/utility, etc. So giving to charity is a self-interested act, in that I only do it because I feel better. But if you described that as being "selfish", I think it just renders the definition of "selfish" meaningless. Instead, I suggest using the word "selfish" to describe someone who gets a lot more well-being/utility from pursuing their own comforts and experiences, compared to someone who gets a lot more well-being/utility from helping others.
VoteCthulu nailed it when he (or she?) said:
The real purpose of charity is to make us feel better about ourselves. Helping those we care more about (people we know, children, victims of natural disasters, etc.) makes the vast majority of people feel better than giving to a cause that saves or improves statistically more faceless lives.
It's so simple when you say it, but I hadn't really thought of it like that before. Giving to a charity recommended by GiveWell makes me feel better than giving to a homeless person on a street because I feel better making decisions in a logical, evidence-based way (as much as possible). But that's not what drives everyone, and most people feel better helping others that are closer to them, even if that is a less optimal act of charity. I can't claim to be any more "selfless" than those people based on the fact that we prefer to give differently - just that I am driven by logic and evidence more than them. But I do believe the world would be a better place if more people were a bit more driven by logic and evidence in their charitable giving.
There are many clear areas of sub-optimal giving - cancer charities; the ice-bucket challenge; and professionals standing on the street with a bucket collecting money. I have been one of those professionals in just the past month - but I was under no delusion that I was doing any good, my employer could have done far more good from donating the money I could have earned in that hour to charity. I just saw it as an opportunity to get out of work for an hour. I do fear that some people doing these meaningless acts of charity get a "warm glow effect" from it and that displaces some more worthwhile good they might otherwise have done.
Logic and evidence is not infallible
That said, there are certainly limitations of the GiveWell/evidence-based giving model. Collecting evidence is costly, and many effects cannot be measured. Even if you choose to use "number of human lives saved" as the sole metric (and it is certainly disputable whether that is the only metric that counts), a pretty compelling argument could be made for me to prioritise buying a work outfit for myself over giving that money to a GiveWell charity - e.g. that work outfit could help me land a job, which will enable me to earn lots more $$ to give to charity in the future. That's the "put your own oxygen mask on first" reasoning. This reasoning can also be extrapolated to donating time or money to education or mentoring organisations/charities - helping others in your country might help them to do more good over time than you could've done by donating all your time/money to GiveWell charities. But these effects are indirect, not guaranteed, and difficult to measure.
In sum, there's something to be said for both the "charity starts at home" and GiveWell approaches. Unfortunately, the GiveWell approach is very underrated, and I suspect many do the "charity starts at home" approach without really thinking through the (direct and indirect) effects. It's somewhat inherent in the way we talk about giving to "charity", as if it doesn't make a lick of difference whether we give to our local church, the busker on the street, or to Malaria No More - while it may not make much difference to the individual giver, it makes an enormous difference to the recipient. I think it's generally good to draw more attention to the GiveWell approach, and to challenge people to think a bit more about some of their "good deeds" or charitable acts.
-
I struggle with accepting the dichotemy between logic and feeling, that for some people appear to lead to only one correct answer. I do not believe GiveWell's priority of #lifes/$ is the one that I should follow to do my best for positive change in the world. My personal research and calculations have led me to believe that the best outcome/energy ratio comes if we are able to contribute to a well functioning local bureaucracy. I know that word is a swear word for many here, but if you look at the countries and local communities that function well today, they all have a trustworthy and fair public management system. The goal is of course not to built a bureaucracy for it's own sake, and it doesn't have to be very large, but it must be fair and trustworthy. It is very difficult to build a functioning government that provides health care and education, if the tax collectors are corrupt and large parts of the economy operates outside the system. It is extremely difficult to get en efficient vaccine programme rolled out if the population believes the government is the enemy, and fear that they are trying to poison them. It is difficult to differentiate between my bias, and what is logically the best answer, but I struggle to see how it is possible to build a well functioning state based on human rights, without it being a democracy of some sort, and without some level of equal opportunities regardsless of race and gender.
I also strongly believe that single individuals can have profound effect on the world.
Based on this world view, I think my energy is best spent on:
-ensuring that my own backyard is as good as it can get
-ensuring that knowledge can and will travel globally
To give a concrete example: I have spent a lot of time and energy working for fossil free vehicles in Norway. Loads of (private and public) money has been spent on building infrastructure and vehicles. We are only 5 million inhabitants, with maybe the same number of vehicles. This is a piss in the ocean if you look at the global transport system. Why should we spend our money like this, instead of buying bicycles for everyone in Cairo? Wouldn't that total global environmental impact be better? Maybe on the short term, but I don't believe it would be on the long term. The (female) leader of the Norwegian EV association has travelled the world and removed myths surrounding EVs. We have tested those vehicles on long distances, negative 40 degrees C, steep hills, etc. There are no excuses left. She even got invited to speak in Dubai, long before the ban on female drivers was lifted. That kind of information sharing has influenced the major car companies (who all have vistited Oslo on multiple occations to get input). If GiveWell would measure this in #lives/$, we would get an F. But if this action has contributed to shifting the transport industry towards clean vehicles, that is a lot of lives on the longer time scale. If you look at what has been achieved on ships, the short time wins are clearer since large ships at harbour cause a lot of local air pollution, causing loss of life in the urban populations. The Norwegian government paid for the development of one electric ferry back in 2013-2014, as proof of concept. Now more and more private vessels install some sort of hybrid battery system, since they see that technology works and that the cost of investment is saved in on fuel in a very short time.
A different type of example: I once spent my time, and a few thousand Euros of public money, to train 72 norwegian kids in environmental issues. These trained another group, who again trained a third group. I just saw in the paper that the last group has decided that they each are going to push their local municipalities to implement 2-3 actions to reduce climate emissions. Might be some good results from that. Some of those kids I originally trained, have gone on to do quite cool things. Some of them have been elected to political positions, some are studying to become scientists, and at least one of them is travelling the world working for and raising awareness for charities. One of them took to heart the training in applying for public funding, and started a project where kids from North Africa travel to his village to learn how to build and operate solar panels, and kids from the Norwegian village travelling back home with them to help build and install the solar panels.
These are my type of charities: https://www.nrc.no/expert-deployment/nordem/nordem-2017/about-nordem/ and https://www.nrc.no/expert-deployment/aboutnorcap/
-
I've read Peter Singer. One point that I don't think he addresses sufficiently in the local vs. overseas debate is that it's a lot easier to assess and control where your donation goes, if it goes locally. If I give money to the local food bank or time to a community group, I get some influence over how that group operates since they don't want to lose me as a donor or a volunteer. I also get first-hand information on what they're doing with the money, and what the results of their activity are.
If I give a chunk of money to World Vision or MSF, I am relying on third- or fourth-hand accounts of what they do. I don't know precisely where my donation goes, because it goes into a giant pile to be doled out to a variety of purposes, some of which I may not agree with if I did know about them. Do I want to pay for an aid worker's new Landcruiser? No. Do I have any control over whether an overseas charity buys a new Landcruiser for its workers? No. Does the charity particularly give a shit if I take my $20/month and leave in protest? No.
Singer's conclusion that giving locally means that you value lives more locally is simplistic and flawed. Telling people that they're doing it wrong if they act locally is something that GiveWell explicitly avoids. It is strategically inept if the aim is to improve the world. If someone is doing some good locally, and they get told that their work is inferior because it's not helping poorer countries overseas, are they likely to happily make that change? No. They are much more likely to (a) become demoralised and give up on making any change, or (b) decide that the person denigrating their efforts is a jackass, and ignore them.
-
No one seems to have considered that misery is not a relative or comparative thing. It's entirely possible to be thoroughly miserable and completely at risk of all the nasty effects of poverty in a developed country on 50 times the income of an equally miserable person in a third world country. We shouldn't be looking at income level. We should be looking at ability to feed oneself and one's family, educate oneself and one's family and make choices around employment, family size etc etc. Personally, I'd feel quite stupid if I was giving money to an organisation in a developing country, where I've been asked for charity all my adult life with no sign of improvement, and where I have zero control over the local government situation when the kid next door is going to school without breakfast or lunch. Charity begins at home means to me that charity is simple and direct, and we've lost that idea. It's keeping an eye on elderly neighbours, noticing when kids are in need, and all that.
-
One thing about having so many charities and so many people in the world is that everyone has different things they care about. I care very deeply about homelessness in the UK and have seen the wonderful work charities can do to not only house people but to support them to become self-sufficient - find and keep a job, shop and cook for themselves, manage their health issues (physical and mental), organise their finances... I really value that work and its long-term aims. Others value protecting the environment, curing cancer or donkey sanctuaries. It would not, in my opinion, be a good thing if everyone suddenly started buying mosquito nets and pulled the rug out from under all those other charities. I think people should make well-researched and well-considered donation, but not all make the same donation. There are lots of causes and lots of people. That's OK.
-
My understanding of the need to describe motivations for giving in terms of emotional vs rational is that most people tend to act on instinct, to act on emotion based on what they see and feel. This is ok, there's nothing wrong with giving to whatever causes mean the most to you. but since most charitable giving is made in this way (to support local causes that we can see and interact with), someone has to fulfill the other need, which is way underfunded.
It's a lot like MMM. There have been threads here asking "What if everyone suddenly becomes super frugal, won't our economy tank?" I see this as similar to "But who will provide for all the needs of my hometown / home country if we all start giving everything away to other countries?" The fact is, most people won't become super frugal. Due to human nature, social conditioning, habit, lack of motivation, etc. No matter how rational an argument MMM makes, it's unlikely that the majority of the population will suddenly switch gears. The same goes for funding international causes. Local causes are the focus of most people's attention, so there's not much risk of everyone suddenly donating 100% of their charitable giving to then poorest nations. GiveWell and the Singer book are a nudge towards acting against our usual behaviours. If it takes a 200 page book or an organization like GiveWell to provide a counterpoint to human nature, and sway just a few people to act on this reasoning, then that's really valuable, in terms of making the world a better, less impoverished, diseased and (economically, socially) unequal place.
-
One of the problems that I don't think this thread has brought out yet is that "giving to charity" is outsourcing the issues: firstly it is about what other people are doing, and secondly it is a partial response to the issues rather than an "all in" response. Even the "giving well" philosophy suffers from these issues. I think the preferred response is a "living well" one -
1. Before I was FIREd, I had a job with what I considered to be public utility. Not going to lie: it was fascinating to me and paid well, although less well than the private sector. But it was a job with a clearly defined public purpose and benefit to it, which I valued.
2. After FIRE, I put a fair amount of effort into volunteering locally. That includes being elected to my parish council and working to improve its decision-making and assisting various local volunteer groups with time and expertise. (Does facepunching on case studies count as "international volunteering"?)
3. I spend my money with thought. I buy local produce and support local businesses with my money in preference to national or internet ones. I limit my purchases but buy secondhand where I can, including clothes and household goods, to spare the environment. My dog is a rescue rather than buying into the puppy industry when there are already too many dogs.
4. I have two rental properties locally. Luckily they have both been in considerable demand and I've had a choice of good tenants. I choose those I think will contribute the most to my locality, for instance by sending children to the village school (it's an effort to keep it open, and having a village school helps keep the village community alive rather than turning into a commuter/holiday destination dormitory) and being employed locally.
All that happens before you even get into "what I give to charity" (which I do). But in a sense all of it is about things which could be classed as charitable activities: through my actions I am supporting the rule of law, good governance, local employment and the local economy, the environment and animal charities.
The preferred charities I merely give money to are those which I think have highest utility and least support but which I am entirely unsuited to supporting through personal actions. My biggest annual donation goes to the care of mentally disabled adults.
-
This thread and discussion about the prior FU story have several layers.
The original FU story with the generous employee giving the $5k raise towards elsewhere the impetus for this thread. When looking at the original FU thread, I don't get the sense that the giver "GettingClose" felt that this was a charitable act, but rather an action of social justice. Whether that is an effective way to change things or not is debatable, but the OP is working to live by his/her ideals (in this case, social justice and income equality), which to me, is very commendable. However, this action is NOT charitable, which OP realizes and tells us:
"there's a difference between charity and justice. Can't articulate it very well; need to think more first"
This "Charity starts at home . . . " thread is asking about whether that action was an effective way of donating. As said above, the original OP, Gettingclose" did not feel this was charitable or necessarily generous: More an act of justice re: income inequality.
If that's the case, I think the the fact that the OP is trying to live by ideals that are challenging, thinking outside of himself/herself are commendable.
That being said, I do agree that there is a lot more to be said about charitable giving and responsibility that we might have.
I also appreciate that in a forum where the primary goal is to live frugally to consider FIRE, that discussions of how charitable giving might play a role in that equation. Arebelspy's comment about working longer to give more does deserve more discussion. And Peter Singer's book is outstanding.
-
One of the problems that I don't think this thread has brought out yet is that "giving to charity" is outsourcing the issues: firstly it is about what other people are doing, and secondly it is a partial response to the issues rather than an "all in" response. Even the "giving well" philosophy suffers from these issues. I think the preferred response is a "living well" one -
1. Before I was FIREd, I had a job with what I considered to be public utility. Not going to lie: it was fascinating to me and paid well, although less well than the private sector. But it was a job with a clearly defined public purpose and benefit to it, which I valued.
2. After FIRE, I put a fair amount of effort into volunteering locally. That includes being elected to my parish council and working to improve its decision-making and assisting various local volunteer groups with time and expertise. (Does facepunching on case studies count as "international volunteering"?)
3. I spend my money with thought. I buy local produce and support local businesses with my money in preference to national or internet ones. I limit my purchases but buy secondhand where I can, including clothes and household goods, to spare the environment. My dog is a rescue rather than buying into the puppy industry when there are already too many dogs.
4. I have two rental properties locally. Luckily they have both been in considerable demand and I've had a choice of good tenants. I choose those I think will contribute the most to my locality, for instance by sending children to the village school (it's an effort to keep it open, and having a village school helps keep the village community alive rather than turning into a commuter/holiday destination dormitory) and being employed locally.
All that happens before you even get into "what I give to charity" (which I do). But in a sense all of it is about things which could be classed as charitable activities: through my actions I am supporting the rule of law, good governance, local employment and the local economy, the environment and animal charities.
The preferred charities I merely give money to are those which I think have highest utility and least support but which I am entirely unsuited to supporting through personal actions. My biggest annual donation goes to the care of mentally disabled adults.
Thank you for articulating something that's been bothering me. I don't agree with the "all charity is inherently selfish" side of the argument, but I'm not sure that a lot of what I do is "charity" in that sense. However, I am making choices with my time, energy and $ to support my local community.
I spent all of yesterday helping my local ski patrol with their annual medical refresher. Technically, I was "volunteering." Practically, I had a fair amount of fun (and also wound up with a thin layer of ketchup and corn syrup over about half of me) and I learned a few things too. Also, 50+ people came away with a bunch to think about re: what to do when faced with difficult-to-control bleeding, and they'll use that knowledge going forward. When I try to categorize activities like that, I come down in "having fun while building a stronger, more resilient community." And, really, I'm "selfishly" spending my time making sure more people in my community have access to practice and information to help save lives.
(Edited, because apparently I couldn't decide between "thin" and "sticky" layer of ketchup and wound up with "think" which makes no sense.)
-
Totally. That's a great, worthwhile activity. It's just not charity.
-
This thread and discussion about the prior FU story have several layers.
The original FU story with the generous employee giving the $5k raise towards elsewhere the impetus for this thread. When looking at the original FU thread, I don't get the sense that the giver "GettingClose" felt that this was a charitable act, but rather an action of social justice. Whether that is an effective way to change things or not is debatable, but the OP is working to live by his/her ideals (in this case, social justice and income equality), which to me, is very commendable. However, this action is NOT charitable, which OP realizes and tells us:
"there's a difference between charity and justice. Can't articulate it very well; need to think more first"
This "Charity starts at home . . . " thread is asking about whether that action was an effective way of donating. As said above, the original OP, Gettingclose" did not feel this was charitable or necessarily generous: More an act of justice re: income inequality.
If that's the case, I think the the fact that the OP is trying to live by ideals that are challenging, thinking outside of himself/herself are commendable.
That being said, I do agree that there is a lot more to be said about charitable giving and responsibility that we might have.
I also appreciate that in a forum where the primary goal is to live frugally to consider FIRE, that discussions of how charitable giving might play a role in that equation. Arebelspy's comment about working longer to give more does deserve more discussion. And Peter Singer's book is outstanding.
Yes, MMM365, you understand what I was trying to convey.
About actual charitable giving, I've become deeply cynical about the ability of money to fix problems. If you look at the trillions of dollars poured into Africa over the past 200 years, and the billions of dollars into Haiti over the past 50 years (there were over 10,000 NGOs operating in Haiti before the 2012 earthquake - and this is a country of about 10 million people) ... it all seems to have accomplished very little. The programs which seem to make the most long term difference involve family planning (for a huge variety of reasons, but most practically so that families don't have to continually split a small plot of land even smaller with each generation, preventing the overcrowding which causes so much unrest and tribal warfare) and education. As someone upthread pointed out, good government makes the most difference of all, and is something that Jeffrey Sachs discusses at length.
As anyone who's worked with homelessness in the US understands, 90% of the problem is not lack of houses; it's alcoholism, drug use, mental illness, and/or an unwillingness to tolerate rules (employers, landlords, banks, etc.)
Looking at members of my own family who live in poverty, the problem isn't lack of money; it's lack of long term planning, lack of executive function, inability to restrain impulses.
I don't mean to extrapolate the last two paragraphs to developing countries.
Anyway, I used to give hugely (20%+ of gross income) to charitable causes, but have become disillusioned. This after working on international projects in developing countries, mission trips, etc.
-
bout actual charitable giving, I've become deeply cynical about the ability of money to fix problems. If you look at the trillions of dollars poured into Africa over the past 200 years, and the billions of dollars into Haiti over the past 50 years (there were over 10,000 NGOs operating in Haiti before the 2012 earthquake - and this is a country of about 10 million people) ... it all seems to have accomplished very little. The programs which seem to make the most long term difference involve family planning (for a huge variety of reasons, but most practically so that families don't have to continually split a small plot of land even smaller with each generation, preventing the overcrowding which causes so much unrest and tribal warfare) and education. As someone upthread pointed out, good government makes the most difference of all, and is something that Jeffrey Sachs discusses at length.
As anyone who's worked with homelessness in the US understands, 90% of the problem is not lack of houses; it's alcoholism, drug use, mental illness, and/or an unwillingness to tolerate rules (employers, landlords, banks, etc.)
Looking at members of my own family who live in poverty, the problem isn't lack of money; it's lack of long term planning, lack of executive function, inability to restrain impulses.
I don't mean to extrapolate the last two paragraphs to developing countries.
This is good. I watched a documentary on Netflix (twice) about the charity "business" and how in some cases and some countries, it does little to no good. It's big business and actually harms things. I should watch it again. I think it was "Poverty, Inc."
I read a lot about economics, and poverty, and such. I find it to be such a multi-faceted and difficult issue. And people don't like hard things. I got into an argument on a local news site about poverty - the article was about farmworkers. The other guy was "a lifelong rancher, and trust me these guys get paid plenty". But I think he was looking at his own narrow experience, in our county - and not looking to what it's like to be a farm worker elsewhere, in other places. And he was thinking of one or two local crops. Picking different things are ... well ... different.
And poverty is different for different people. Not everyone has the skills or grit or luck to get themselves out of poverty, even with help.
-
One of the reasons we picked the homelessness charity that we did (St Mungos) is that it offers lifetime support to its clients. Any time they want, they can pick up the phone and ask for advice, come in for an appointment... I've done some art projects with homelessness charities and it really is about supporting the whole person. It can do wonders and sometimes they just keep falling. I bumped into a guy I did a project with two years ago. At the time he was an ex-alcoholic who was in his own home and working towards getting a job and setting up a meeting with his estranged daughter. When I saw him this summer he was drunk and smelled of piss and had lost all his teeth. But was just starting to re-engage with services and was hopeful that he could do better in the future. It's a long road.
-
bout actual charitable giving, I've become deeply cynical about the ability of money to fix problems. If you look at the trillions of dollars poured into Africa over the past 200 years, and the billions of dollars into Haiti over the past 50 years (there were over 10,000 NGOs operating in Haiti before the 2012 earthquake - and this is a country of about 10 million people) ... it all seems to have accomplished very little. The programs which seem to make the most long term difference involve family planning (for a huge variety of reasons, but most practically so that families don't have to continually split a small plot of land even smaller with each generation, preventing the overcrowding which causes so much unrest and tribal warfare) and education. As someone upthread pointed out, good government makes the most difference of all, and is something that Jeffrey Sachs discusses at length.
As anyone who's worked with homelessness in the US understands, 90% of the problem is not lack of houses; it's alcoholism, drug use, mental illness, and/or an unwillingness to tolerate rules (employers, landlords, banks, etc.)
Looking at members of my own family who live in poverty, the problem isn't lack of money; it's lack of long term planning, lack of executive function, inability to restrain impulses.
I don't mean to extrapolate the last two paragraphs to developing countries.
This is good. I watched a documentary on Netflix (twice) about the charity "business" and how in some cases and some countries, it does little to no good. It's big business and actually harms things. I should watch it again. I think it was "Poverty, Inc."
I read a lot about economics, and poverty, and such. I find it to be such a multi-faceted and difficult issue. And people don't like hard things. I got into an argument on a local news site about poverty - the article was about farmworkers. The other guy was "a lifelong rancher, and trust me these guys get paid plenty". But I think he was looking at his own narrow experience, in our county - and not looking to what it's like to be a farm worker elsewhere, in other places. And he was thinking of one or two local crops. Picking different things are ... well ... different.
And poverty is different for different people. Not everyone has the skills or grit or luck to get themselves out of poverty, even with help.
I don't think that most people realise that things like seeds are branded products. A great deal of research goes into breeding plants that are disease resistant and weather hardy, and seeds from those plants are sold under a brand. They're beyond the means of many of the poor people in the world. And so it the kind of fertiliser and weed/pest control that our farmers take for granted. Add to that the fact that many of the poorest parts of the world are in severe drought conditions, and you've got a situation where many people in developing countries cannot grow enough to feed their families, regardless of the work they put in. They can't even START the process on a level playing field with our farmers. Even if they do work in an primary industry that is highly productive and lucrative, like bananas or coffee or chocolate, they get paid a starvation wage because rich westerners demand things cheaper and cheaper with no thought at all to the people at the other end.
"Not everyone has the skills or grit or luck to get themselves out of poverty, even with help."
This may well be true. But I think it's usually because they're not getting the right kind of help. I doubt that going into a village of starving kids and educating them in a subsistence level society is really of any help. And we can see from the ongoing situations all over the world, situations that are just as dire 40 years on, that this is pointless. If you want to help, give them access to credit, for example via microfinancing. Give them the ability to invest in skills they can use to support their families. Give them access to global products at a fair price (I'm looking at you, agricultural companies), and choose to buy fair trade products so that these people get paid for their labour.
-
This may well be true. But I think it's usually because they're not getting the right kind of help. I doubt that going into a village of starving kids and educating them in a subsistence level society is really of any help. And we can see from the ongoing situations all over the world, situations that are just as dire 40 years on, that this is pointless. If you want to help, give them access to credit, for example via microfinancing. Give them the ability to invest in skills they can use to support their families. Give them access to global products at a fair price (I'm looking at you, agricultural companies), and choose to buy fair trade products so that these people get paid for their labour.
yes
-
The only charities I give to are the local and national Libertarian Party and various Libertarian candidates, those that will fight to reduce and eliminate government theft. I would love to give to other causes, but until government stops stealing so much I simply cannot donate to any other causes. If there was no compulsory government theft just for existing I couple donate tens of thousands every year, do so much good for others, and still be far better off financially than I am now.
-
The only charities I give to are the local and national Libertarian Party and various Libertarian candidates, those that will fight to reduce and eliminate government theft. I would love to give to other causes, but until government stops stealing so much I simply cannot donate to any other causes. If there was no compulsory government theft just for existing I couple donate tens of thousands every year, do so much good for others, and still be far better off financially than I am now.
I'm not sure this is worth saying, but taxation isn't theft. We all have services we get from our municipalities, and even those we don't use benefit us holistically (schools if we don't have kids, Medicaid even if we don't need it), by helping society. Not that I like US budget priorities (endless cash for defense, cuts everywhere else), but it's no reason not to give.
Lately I donate more time because to be honest my budgeting doesn't yet put giving first and I end up spending on non essentials, but I'm definitely careful to be giving time (this year mostly to citizenship application and English language class teaching), and money at least sporadically.
-
Edit: added quotes from the others who were discussing this in the other thread since I can't move comments like a mod.
In the "Epic FU Stories" thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/epic-fu-money-stories/1800/) there is a discussion about charity giving that I wanted to break out to discuss more.
GettingClose was offered a raise but turned it down so the company could offer it to her lower paid co-worker. Then this happened:
I was trying to convey that this wasn't that generous an action - New Guy was buying a house and had a combined household income of probably $70k. Also, I have some opinions about fairness/equality in compensation, and it would have probably cost me considerably in the area of guilt (difficult to monetize) to have someone working the same hours as me for less than 1/3 the pay. It's my personal cutoff for whatever reason - I can justify 3x the salary due to my greater education, experience, innate ability, whatever - but not more than that. Need to put my money where my mouth is to feel OK about myself. I hope this makes sense.
Not downplaying this at all, I'm impressed you donated your money to some other cause, but just curious why you see that guy as more deserving of your money than people in other countries who don't make 1/3rd what you do but 1/3000th? ~20% of the worlds population makes less than $1/day. Sure you don't need it, but if you're going to donate your money to a charity, I think you should do it purposely in a way that best matches with your values rather than to some guy at work you feel bad for.
a) "charity starts at home" principle
b) I make other donations - but (despite the wording of point "a") there's a difference between charity and justice. Can't articulate it very well; need to think more first.
c) I work for a single company and have a single team, and this was my single chance to address income inequality in a meaningful way. This particular instance had a name and a face, and rightly or wrongly, that matters.
It's not wrong. It matters. Gotta say, that other comment made my blood boil.
Charity begins at home, indeed.
Yup - seems like you acted exactly in line with your values regarding income inequality. And hopefully in a way that will make a long-term difference to the organisation. Good on you.
My comments elicited a strong response from a number of people on that thread which is part of the reason I'm breaking this discussion out into its own thread.
Ufffff.
Everyone gets to do what they want with their money. That's why it's charity and not tax. Sure, GettingClose could instead donate money to poor children in random-3rd-world country. Alternatively, he could keep the money for himself, aggressively save, and then donate a larger some later. Alternatively, he could take the promotion, fight tooth and nail to get as high as possible in his company, use that to take the next steps etc... and eventually be ultra-rich guy who can have an even bigger impact on the world. Alternatively, he could just do whatever makes him feel best, and maybe being what you feel is the best type of person is the most positive contribution to the world.
Determining what is best to do with charity is a very personal decision, and the second that you begin criticizing others choices, it begins to impact the 'charity' nature of it. This is why it elicits a strong response in people. It's because it's not your fucking business.
-
The only charities I give to are the local and national Libertarian Party and various Libertarian candidates, those that will fight to reduce and eliminate government theft. I would love to give to other causes, but until government stops stealing so much I simply cannot donate to any other causes. If there was no compulsory government theft just for existing I couple donate tens of thousands every year, do so much good for others, and still be far better off financially than I am now.
I'm not sure this is worth saying, but taxation isn't theft. We all have services we get from our municipalities, and even those we don't use benefit us holistically (schools if we don't have kids, Medicaid even if we don't need it), by helping society. Not that I like US budget priorities (endless cash for defense, cuts everywhere else), but it's no reason not to give.
Saying something doesn't make it true. Also, just because the thief might choose to provide a service, does not change the fact that theft has occurred if there was no consent. Consent cannot be given under duress. Let's exclude usage based taxes on forced monopolies (i.e. vehicle registration and gas tax for roads) or taxes that are somewhat avoidable (i.e. sales tax) and focus on compulsory theft merely for existing, such as income tax and property tax.
Theft: A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/theft (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/theft)
1. The mafia charging protection money is not stealing from those paying protection money as a service is provided, no theft has occurred.
2. A burglar or mugger who then donates the proceeds to charity is not a thief, no theft has occurred.
Do you agree with those two statements?
Consider the following:
the imposition of a federal income tax is more than just taking from those who work and earn and giving to those who dont. And it is more than just a spigot to fill the federal trough. At its base, it is a terrifying presumption. It presumes that we dont really own our property. It accepts the Marxist notion that the state owns all the property and the state permits us to keep and use whatever it needs us to have so we wont riot in the streets. And then it steals and uses whatever it can politically get away with. Do you believe this?
There are only three ways to acquire wealth in a free society. The inheritance model occurs when someone gives you wealth. The economic model occurs when you trade a skill, a talent, an asset, knowledge, sweat, energy or creativity to a willing buyer. And the mafia model occurs when a guy with a gun says: Give me your money or else.
Which model does the government use? Why do we put up with this?
https://mises.org/blog/taxation-theft (https://mises.org/blog/taxation-theft)
As I said, if it weren't for compulsory government theft I (and presumably everyone else) could donate tens of thousands more annually to charity and still be financially better off. You mentioned endless spending on "defense". I'd argue that spending is on offense, and it only accounts for around 16% of federal spending. Around 2/3, 60%+ of federal spending is on welfare... That's at least 3.75% more endless than the spending for military offense. Both of these categories of federal spending should be reduced.
-
I don't know where you are getting your info but your definition of "welfare" must include Medicaid. I am perfectly happy to have my taxes go to Medicaid since the alternative is people not having health insurance.
-
Norabird, do you agree with these statements? Why or why not?
1. The mafia charging protection money is not stealing from those paying protection money as a service is provided, no theft has occurred.
2. A burglar or mugger who then donates the proceeds to charity is not a thief, no theft has occurred.
I don't know where you are getting your info but your definition of "welfare" must include Medicaid.
By welfare I am referring to government welfare. Definition of welfare:
a :aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need
b :an agency or program through which such aid is distributed
I'm curious, in your budget do you itemize the portion of taxes for medicaid as charitable donations? How does this differ from the other itemized amounts that are demanded from you by the government? If charitable donation amounts come up in conversation do you include the portion government took in the line item for medicaid tax as part of the total you assert to have donated to charity?
I am perfectly happy to have my taxes go to Medicaid
Okay, perhaps you consent. What about those that do not consent? What do you propose should be done to them?
since the alternative is people not having health insurance
This does not logically follow, you've made up a false conclusion. This is not particularly relevant ether way though.
-
Oh goody. This again.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/96/face-with-rolling-eyes_1f644.png)
-
If that's the case, I think the the fact that the OP is trying to live by ideals that are challenging, thinking outside of himself/herself are commendable.
Yes, MMM365, you understand what I was trying to convey.
Another take on this is that if everyone lived by such ideals there would be pretty much no need for charity.
-
Oh goody. This again.
(https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/apple/96/face-with-rolling-eyes_1f644.png)
Drink! (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/is-credit-card-churning-ethical/msg573951/#msg573951)
-
Fascinating discussion, on many levels.
The phrase "Charity begins at home" can be traced back to Deuteronomy. Equally ancient, is the concept that we will always have poverty.
The risk of focusing on effectiveness rankings is that it often becomes an excuse to do nothing. We won't cure poverty. We haven't cured heart disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes, addiction or cancer either. It doesnt mean we shouldn't try to prevent these ills or alleviate suffering. That's really all we can do.
-
Drink! (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/is-credit-card-churning-ethical/msg573951/#msg573951)
Hah. Good one.
MOD NOTE: Taxation = theft arguments are off topic, and will be removed going forward. Start a new thread if you wish.
-
About actual charitable giving, I've become deeply cynical about the ability of money to fix problems. If you look at the trillions of dollars poured into Africa over the past 200 years, and the billions of dollars into Haiti over the past 50 years (there were over 10,000 NGOs operating in Haiti before the 2012 earthquake - and this is a country of about 10 million people) ... it all seems to have accomplished very little.
This is good. I watched a documentary on Netflix (twice) about the charity "business" and how in some cases and some countries, it does little to no good. It's big business and actually harms things. I should watch it again. I think it was "Poverty, Inc."
Two things to address this argument that charities can be ineffective and waste money:
1) Even if true, it's better to give $100 and have 90% wasted, and have that final $10 save a life than not give at all.
2) This issue has become a LOT better in the last decade.
Many other smart people were concerned with this issue (ineffective charity), and thus launched missions that directly speak to this. Effective Altruism and GiveWell, both discussed in this thread, are based on the idea of evaluating charities and going with the most effective ones. Using scientific methods and actual studies, we can find where our dollars make the most bang for the buck.
Instead of just blindly giving to something (Red Cross or Unicef or United Way or whatever) and hoping your contribution does something, you can actually research specific charities and see how effective they are in helping people.
I used to totally agree with what was posted above. I'm sure most Mustachians hate waste. We like optimized efficiency. So the idea of donating and having a large part of it be wasted is galling.
I no longer agree that this is the case, if you donate effectively. There are charities that actually WORK and help people, and save lives.
The "charities are a business" or "money can't fix problems" thing was a BIG issue 20 years ago. It's still a big issue, in fact, because plenty of charities exist that are pretty terrible. But it is MUCH easier with GiveWell and such in combination with the Internet to find effective ones, and put your money towards those causes.
-
Ultimately, comparison is the thief of joy. Criticizing someone for not being generous in the right way strikes me as judgmental and unnecessarily harsh.
I've had people question whether or not I do charitable things. I think it's up to the individual to decide and okay for them to keep it private, if they want to. I was lambasted by a friend several years ago in a situation that blew up. She told me I should buy lunch for a certain person, one of our mutual friends, as an act of charity. I didn't like being dictated to.
-
Interesting take. Do you then believe there is only one charity per purpose that we should all give to because math says so? If I give to an animal charity am I wasting my money because it isn't going to humans? If I give to poor kids' education am I wasting it because I'm not giving it to people who can't afford meals?
I see "Charity starts at home" like "Secure your own oxygen mask before assisting others".
Exactly my thoughts on this. What's wrong with giving to my community and trying to make it better? Am I suppose to ignore problems at home because people in Africa also have problems?
Wanted to respond to the MAGA crowd here.
What's wrong with giving to your community and trying to make it better, and why you should ignore problems at home because people in Africa also have (capital-P) Problems:
- A small donation isn't going to do much of anything to the average american, but can make a major, major difference somewhere else. If you give $100 to a homeless guy, and let's assume he doesn't use it to buy drugs or alcohol, what would he do? Purchase some food at the grocery store, then what? Where's he going to store it? What's he going to do when it runs out? It's a small, temporary benefit. His life wasn't in danger, he wasn't starving or succumbing to the elements because there are homeless shelters and food kitchens in America. You have to want to starve to death to do so in America. In comparison, $100 given to a very, very poor person in Africa (why does it always have to be Africa?) could allow her to purchase some sort of livestock that would supply food to the family in perpetuity. It could be used to make a major upgrade to a house like installing a metal roof rather than thatch, thereby noticeably improving living situation and decreasing disease.
- Up the stakes to $5000. You know that 4% rule we're all so familiar with? $5k is enough to provide 'basic income' in the form of $200 per year in perpetuity. That's generational money, that can lift a whole extended family out of absolute poverty into what approximates middle class in the developing world, and provide benefits for future generations. $5k in the developing world is FI. $5k in America is paying a bill; it's rent and security deposit, a down payment on a vehicle, or some small portion of outstanding medical bills. It's not a game changer.
Ultimately then it's not a question of "local" or "abroad". It's a question of a very, very minor improvement in QOL locally, or a very, very major improvement in QOL (or just life, instead of death) abroad.
If you want to give locally the best resource you can give is your time, e.g. volunteering. It doesn't make sense to fly to Africa to volunteer at a soup kitchen, but it does make sense in your community. Your dollars, on the other hand, should go abroad where they are [orders of magnitude] more powerful. That's where your soldiers are more powerful and can work harder. You wouldn't invest your own stash inefficiently -- why would you do so with charitable giving?
In response to the above MAGA comments:
-Do you then believe there is only one charity per purpose that we should all give to because math says so? Some charities are better than others, yes, "because the math says so." (sounds very suspicious of 'math'...). Obviously there could be several charities for one purpose that are all equally efficient, and all would be more worthwhile than dozens of less efficient charities.
-If you give money to an animal charity rather than humans, is it wasted? That depends on whether you think that saving animal life instead of human life would be a waste. I believe that reducing animal suffering is a worthwhile endeavor. But giving resources to benefit animals instead of humans necessarily comes at a human cost. It's fairly easy to lessen animal suffering by changing your behavior -- all you have to do is to stop killing and eating them. It's much harder to lessen human suffering by changing your behavior; however, if you are killing and eating humans, you should stop doing so immediately.
-If I give to poor kids' education am I wasting it because I'm not giving it to people who can't afford meals? Again that depends on whether or not you think that benefiting a poor kids' education is more valuable than feeding someone. In the case of Americans who can't afford meals, there are options. Food stamps. Soup kitchens. Lunch vouchers. etc. In other parts of the world, there is no guaranteed access to either food or clean drinking water.
I'm not denying that people in America suffer due to income inequality. But we have a government and charitable organizations that make resources available. In other parts of the world, people die from lack of basic necessities every day.
-
I'm finding the rigid definitions of charitable morality kind of strange, from this generally non-theistic forum. I can't help but juxtaposing it against the many locked threads about religion, when someone claims there's only one moral path. Oh, the howling!
-
@zombiehunter: Great post!
Very much agree.
I'm finding the rigid definitions of charitable morality kind of strange, from this generally non-theistic forum. I can't help but juxtaposing it against the many locked threads about religion, when someone claims there's only one moral path. Oh, the howling!
Sigh. Not sure why you felt it was necessary, but re: the locked thread comment: There is zero rules around discussing religion. It's perfectly fine. Threads get locked because people can't follow the simple "don't be a jerk" rule, and do personal attacks on others. This tends to happen more in hot topic issues, but it has to do with what people say, not the topic they are discussing.
I really don't get your issue with the moderating here. Perhaps you can explain more, or rather start a thread on it, to keep this one on topic.
As far as on topic, the morality of charity: the overlap between morality and religion is not absolute. There are plenty of immoral things about various religions, and plenty of moral aspects regarding non-religious things. Charity can be more or less moral, regardless of any religion.
You say you find the comments about morality strange from a forum that tend towards atheism, but I don't see what those have to do with each other. It seems like you're implying atheists have no morals, but obviously that's absurd, so I'm not sure what you're saying. We've had many good discussions about morality and many comments from self-proclaimed atheists (such as Sol) with insightful ethical thoughts. See, e.g. the your mustache might be evil (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/your-mustache-might-be-evil/) thread.
-
I wasn't talking about moderation. I included "the many locked threads" just to say that discussing in theistic threads often becomes extremely contentious. Often the contention because a theists says there's only one path towards morality. The larger community tends to find that highly irritating. Commenters in this thread have made the same "one true path to morality" message. It struck me as comment-able.
-
I wasn't talking about moderation. I included "the many locked threads" just to say that discussing in theistic threads often becomes extremely contentious.
Got it. My apologies for the misinterpretation, and thanks for clarifying why you put that in. :)
Often the contention because a theists says there's only one path towards morality. The larger community tends to find that highly irritating. Commenters in this thread have made the same "one true path to morality" message. It struck me as comment-able.
We all make our own morality lines.
The way I read any comments in this thread were in the vein of "here's what I consider to be moral/not."
-
I have strong views on charity. If you're going to get offended at something I say, or take it personally, don't read further. If you can understand reasonable people have different views, shrug, and move on, feel free to proceed.
I almost commented in that thread too, but didn't want to start a fight.
I agree with the OP. That was a terrible use of money compared to what it could have done. Inefficient charity is not much better than no charity at all, and it makes the person doing it feel good, so they do less than they might have otherwise.
I'd rather the person in that thread take the 5k raise, donate 1k to an overseas effective charity and blow the other 4k than give all 5k to a different white collar professional (whereby all 5k of it likely gets blown--it's extremely unlikely that person donates >20%). That would have been a far more effective use of the money (ignoring the fact that they could have donated 2, 3, or even the whole 5k).
I think charity starts at home is *. act locally, *. I think most volunteering is *. I think almost all domestic giving is **.
*weird adding an asterisk when I'm using them to censor. the footnote I wanted to add is that i do give domestically to help protect people's rights. aclu. planned parenthood. eff.** but for stuff like food, or housing no. the amount of food or housing anyone here in the states can access compared to other countries is crazy. we need more support for mentally ill in this country, and i think our government should do much more to support people in that situation. we need more of a social safety net overall, and we need health care for all. but charity dollars should go to helping those who need it most. and that's not anyone in pretty much any first world country.
**and I acknowledge it's probably immoral for me to prioritize the "rights" of people in first world countries over the lives of people in undeveloped countries. my donating to aclu, planned parenthood, eff is a less efficient use of the money, and it just makes me feel good. i try not to think about it, because i'm an immoral person, and thinking about it might make me redirect that money to better causes, and i just don't want to. pretty disturbing.
human life is worthwhile, full stop, period. valuing some lives more than others is pretty sick, and then morally feeling good while doing so, even worse. the difference in the amount of quality life hours you can provide for $1000 in the US versus in africa is astounding. and choosing to say 'fuck those guys because they aren't in geographic proximity to what i call home, due to the random nature of having been born or moved here" is terrible.
yes, this applies to you, people in this thread (i only skimmed it, so i don't even remember who said what) who donate locally, volunteer locally, and do nothing overseas. i think that's a damn shame.
to be clear: i'm in no position to judge, and i'm not judging. i'm as flawed as they come. like i said, i donate where i shouldn't. i'm retired early, rather than working full time to donate more. how sick is it that i'm SO MUCH spending time on one individual (my daughter) each day, when i could be earning money and giving that to save so many lives? it'd fucked up, really. so i donate some money, and try to earn some more with side gigs to donate, and maybe at some point i'll go back just to earn to gibe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give), but for now? * selfish asshole. all that to say, i'm not looking down on those people who aren't helping those who need it most. i'm saying that they aren't doing the moral choice. even if they feel good about it.
The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer is one of the best books I've ever read. Everyone should read it. Especially if you disagree with what I've posted.
You made very strong statements in a previous post, based on your interpretation of how to morally dispense charity, and applied them globally.
-
We all make our own morality lines.
The way I read any comments in this thread were in the vein of "here's what I consider to be moral/not."
-
I guess I don't understand what you're getting at.
Are you upset that I called you immoral, based on my definitions of morality? I called myself immoral in that same post. For the record, I don't think it's actually possible for anyone to be 100% moral. We all do the best we can.
You draw your own lines, and you think your charity is the moral thing to do. Awesome. Keep it up.
The fact that everyone decides their own moral lines seems obvious, to me. Some people posted what theirs were. I'm not sure how you're tying this to religion, or what the issue with it is, really.
I'm not trying to argue, just explain, and seek clarification, because I don't understand the issue. :)
-
About actual charitable giving, I've become deeply cynical about the ability of money to fix problems. If you look at the trillions of dollars poured into Africa over the past 200 years, and the billions of dollars into Haiti over the past 50 years (there were over 10,000 NGOs operating in Haiti before the 2012 earthquake - and this is a country of about 10 million people) ... it all seems to have accomplished very little.
This is good. I watched a documentary on Netflix (twice) about the charity "business" and how in some cases and some countries, it does little to no good. It's big business and actually harms things. I should watch it again. I think it was "Poverty, Inc."
Two things to address this argument that charities can be ineffective and waste money:
1) Even if true, it's better to give $100 and have 90% wasted, and have that final $10 save a life than not give at all.
2) This issue has become a LOT better in the last decade.
Many other smart people were concerned with this issue (ineffective charity), and thus launched missions that directly speak to this. Effective Altruism and GiveWell, both discussed in this thread, are based on the idea of evaluating charities and going with the most effective ones. Using scientific methods and actual studies, we can find where our dollars make the most bang for the buck.
Instead of just blindly giving to something (Red Cross or Unicef or United Way or whatever) and hoping your contribution does something, you can actually research specific charities and see how effective they are in helping people.
I used to totally agree with what was posted above. I'm sure most Mustachians hate waste. We like optimized efficiency. So the idea of donating and having a large part of it be wasted is galling.
I no longer agree that this is the case, if you donate effectively. There are charities that actually WORK and help people, and save lives.
The "charities are a business" or "money can't fix problems" thing was a BIG issue 20 years ago. It's still a big issue, in fact, because plenty of charities exist that are pretty terrible. But it is MUCH easier with GiveWell and such in combination with the Internet to find effective ones, and put your money towards those causes.
Those organizations do a lot to identify the charities that get the biggest bang for the donor buck in terms of short-term payoff. They also create an incentive for other charities to run a tighter ship and to be more careful of donor dollars. Yet the charities that fare best with those kind of metrics tend to produce fast results that are easily expressed in quantitative terms. Progress is predictable and quantitative. Qualitative-oriented charities such as medical research don't fare as well in the short term, however in the long term they accomplish permanent and lasting improvement for the whole world.
Other posters have poked fun at the viral Ice Bucket challenge, which in 2014 raised something like $115 million, most of which went to research. They identified a new key gene associated with ALS and funded some early-stage research that may take a few years to come to fruition. Not all the research initiatives will be successful. Medical research has got to be among the least cost-effective charity program out there because the payoff doesn't come predictably and there's no guarantee it will come at all. When it's successful, though, there is wide ranging benefit. Consider what the March of Dimes has just plain gotten rid of: polio, rubella, spina bifida which is now almost completely unknown, and now they're going after FAS. It's impossible to tell exactly which dime broke the back of polio, but without significant funding the breakthroughs never occur.
The charity that funds the disease research and the vaccine development will almost always have a poorer efficiency rating than the charity that distributes that vaccine in large quantities to people in developing nations. The horse-drawn cart can carry more than the horse. But the horse is a necessary precursor to the cart. The best vaccination distribution charity still requires a vaccine to distribute.
Now, if charitable giving were purely an optimization exercise-- and there are people for whom it is-- the cart type charities would get more than enough funding while the horse type charities got by on little or nothing. So it's probably good that people get emotionally worked up about horse type charities, enough to dump a bucket of ice water over their heads. That's what feeds the horse. And horses eat a lot, and produce more byproduct than makes many people comfortable.
My take on it is that there's different strokes for different folks. Medical research and disaster relief will always be more expensive than education or vaccination campaigns. Things tend to work out best when people who are disposed to give do it in a way that's meaningful and satisfying to them. GiveWell and similar initiatives are very valuable for identifying the most effective charity among other options in the same size, region, and mission. But cross-category comparisons aren't going to make a lot of sense.
-
TheGrimSqueaker - you make a lot of good points, and I agree with much of your post. One thing I want to counter:
Now, if charitable giving were purely an optimization exercise-- and there are people for whom it is-- the cart type charities would get more than enough funding while the horse type charities got by on little or nothing. So it's probably good that people get emotionally worked up about horse type charities, enough to dump a bucket of ice water over their heads. That's what feeds the horse. And horses eat a lot, and produce more byproduct than makes many people comfortable.
My issue with the ice bucket challenge is not that it raised funds for a charity that focused on research, which necessarily promotes less measurable/direct benefits.
My issues with the ice bucket challenge are that:
- Many people doing the challenge or giving to the charity did not make their decision rationally, based on their expectations that donating to research may generate longer term benefits . Heck, I'm not even sure a lot of those people made their decisions "emotionally" in the sense you describe - of getting "emotionally worked up" about ALS. Rather, a lot of those donations were made more or less unthinkingly simply because of the very successful social media campaign.
- There is research to show that moral licensing is a real thing (https://qz.com/249649/the-cold-hard-truth-about-the-ice-bucket-challenge/), and the ice bucket challenge may well have crowded out/cannabilised other worthwhile causes. Sure, they identified a new gene, but who knows what good might have been done if people had donated to other charities? Of course, we don't know - maybe without the ice bucket challenge, people would have mostly donated to ineffective charities anyway, or not at all.
My point is that things like the ice bucket challenge tend to promote "mindless" donations. A case could be certainly be made for donating to ALS rather than, say, the Against Malaria Foundation, despite the more direct/measurable good that Against Malaria does. But the ice bucket challenge did not encourage people to think carefully about their donations. That is my problem with it.
-
As someone who somewhat looked down on the ice bucket challenge at the time my understanding is that actually, those non rational donations don't decrease people's charitable giving and so there's only a net good--and there have been results. I think if we start giving more--to anything--it creates a good habit. I do tend to think I should be putting my money in more EA places, I also give emotionally as well and my rates of donating swing. It's not where I want it to be but one day I hope to get there, with 'there' always being a personal destination for each of us.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
my understanding is that actually, those non rational donations don't decrease people's charitable giving
Do you have a source for this?
The link in the post above yours says the opposite.
I feel like common sense says the same thing; I'd think someone who donated several hundred to various ice bucket challenges when it came to other giving would think "I just cut that check for the ice bucket thing, I can't do this other charity right now."
-
I guess I don't understand what you're getting at.
Are you upset that I called you immoral, based on my definitions of morality? I called myself immoral in that same post. For the record, I don't think it's actually possible for anyone to be 100% moral. We all do the best we can.
You draw your own lines, and you think your charity is the moral thing to do. Awesome. Keep it up.
The fact that everyone decides their own moral lines seems obvious, to me. Some people posted what theirs were. I'm not sure how you're tying this to religion, or what the issue with it is, really.
I'm not trying to argue, just explain, and seek clarification, because I don't understand the issue. :)
Okay, I'll rephrase. I'm trying to make an somewhat wry observation about the nature of the human brain.
A repeating theme in many religious threads 'round here is that eventually some pedantic jackhole will proclaim to know the one true path to leading an ethical life. There can be only one! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqcLjcSloXs), the jackhole will howl from the heights, in a froth of righteous frenzy. The forum then hurls that righteous frenzy right back, and there are many vigorous proclamations made from "self-proclaimed atheists (such as Sol) with insightful ethical thoughts" telling the pedantic jackhole they may go screw. Repeat as necessary, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
In this thread we see the same pedantic jackholery about there only being one moral path. It even comes with a sopuçon of: shucks, I'm a sinner to. Yet, far far less people telling the pedantic jackhole they may go screw.
It's interesting. Why do we lose our shit on the one thread and kinda shrug on this one, when the same fundamental idea is being discussed?
-
Well, I don't think there is really condemnation of alternate ways of giving, more different opinions.
Can't seem to find whatever I had read on giving, but I also can't find anything that verifies charity cannibalism is a real effect, either. I try not to be high and mighty in dismissing challenges on the ALS lines anymore, though. It's not like it ever goes well to dismiss someone's priorities! (Which reminds me to buy supplies to give to the Hurricane Maria drive at choir tonight)
-
I may be one of the "pedantic jackholes" in this thread.
I also don't get the comparison between ethics and religion. Religions are organized faith-based morality, in a sense, and it's the organized faith part that I don't like. However, when faced with a logical explanation of utilitarian ethics, I tend to agree with the logic and do my best with what I've learned. That's the opposite of blindly following and/or preaching a faith based organized religion, IMO.
-
In this thread we see the same pedantic jackholery about there only being one moral path. It even comes with a sopuçon of: shucks, I'm a sinner to. Yet, far far less people telling the pedantic jackhole they may go screw.
It's interesting. Why do we lose our shit on the one thread and kinda shrug on this one, when the same fundamental idea is being discussed?
I follow what you're trying to get at, I guess I just haven't seen it happen in this thread. :)
-
I think the issue is that there's ... at least the flavor ... of similar zealotry to the religion (and veganism) threads in here. There have definitely been several posts in this thread saying "the only moral way to be charitable is to give money to XXX." Even if that's leavened with a scoop of "but I'm not perfectly moral, and neither are you" it still feels like an absolutist, judgmental statement: It's fundamentalist in feeling.
(And that's without even getting into the whole "Taxation is thievery" theme. I am seriously impressed that several people managed to respond to that with civil discussions.)
I've been dipping in and out of the thread here, because of the tone, but I'm also a bit surprised that it's gone on for so long, just skirting the edge of being "too dickish". I think the mods have been doing a great job all over the boards, and that's probably why this thread has stayed on the right side of "don't be a jerk": people are aware that if they cross the line, the thread will be locked -- which is the kind of self-policing we want.
And, to be painfully expository, many religious people seem to think that the only way to be ethical is to be religious. (I refer y'all back to the "is it possible to raise ethical children in a non-religious household" thread in Mini-mustaches, which went on for pages.) Discussion of ethics typically feels at least related to a discussion of religion, because they're supposedly related. I actually agree with MMM_Donuts' last comment in content, but think s/he's being willfully ignorant with the innocent question of "I don't get the comparison."
-
Conflating ethics and religion is truly insane. There are undoubtedly people who do it but they're just totally separate things!!
-
I think the issue is that there's ... at least the flavor ... of similar zealotry to the religion (and veganism) threads in here. There have definitely been several posts in this thread saying "the only moral way to be charitable is to give money to XXX." Even if that's leavened with a scoop of "but I'm not perfectly moral, and neither are you" it still feels like an absolutist, judgmental statement: It's fundamentalist in feeling.
I still don't get why this is unique or even something with commenting on.
Don't we do that with EVERYTHING?
"Here is my opinion on X. You are free to have your own opinion, but I am sharing my thoughts."
That's approximately...99% of all thoughts, ever. The other 1% being tautologies.
In this thread it's:
"Here's my opinion of what is moral/immoral. If you're doing things on one side of the line, I consider it a moral action. If you aren't, I consider it immoral."
In another thread it might be:
"Here's my opinion of what is/is not a waste of money. If you're doing things on one side of the line, I consider it a good use of money\. If you aren't, I consider it a waste of money."
In another thread it might be:
"Here's my opinion of what is/is not a waste of time. If you're doing things on one side of the line, I consider it a good use of time. If you aren't, I consider it a waste of time."
Or exercise, or food, or vaccines, or etc., etc.
In this thread, people are discussing and sharing where their moral lines are. It has no more, or less, judgement than any other thread where you share opinions. It may be that people take it more personally if they're on the other side of the line that someone puts out there, because everyone wants to think they're an ethical person, and don't like if others wouldn't view them that way, but again... who cares what other people think?
-
Conflating ethics and religion is truly insane. There are undoubtedly people who do it but they're just totally separate things!!
100% agree.
It's just that they've been tied together for thousands of years, because religion likes to use ethics to control people (telling them what they can't do, what is a sin, etc.), and many people learn ethics through their religion.
That doesn't mean either is necessary nor sufficient for the other.
-
I think the issue is that there's ... at least the flavor ... of similar zealotry to the religion (and veganism) threads in here. There have definitely been several posts in this thread saying "the only moral way to be charitable is to give money to XXX." Even if that's leavened with a scoop of "but I'm not perfectly moral, and neither are you" it still feels like an absolutist, judgmental statement: It's fundamentalist in feeling.
I still don't get why this is unique or even something with commenting on.
Don't we do that with EVERYTHING?
"Here is my opinion on X. You are free to have your own opinion, but I am sharing my thoughts."
That's approximately...99% of all thoughts, ever. The other 1% being tautologies.
In this thread it's:
"Here's my opinion of what is moral/immoral. If you're doing things on one side of the line, I consider it a moral action. If you aren't, I consider it immoral."
In another thread it might be:
"Here's my opinion of what is/is not a waste of money. If you're doing things on one side of the line, I consider it a good use of money\. If you aren't, I consider it a waste of money."
In this thread, people are discussing and sharing where their moral lines are. It has no more, or less, judgement than any other thread where you share opinions. It may be that people take it more personally if they're on the other side of the line that someone puts out there, because everyone wants to think they're an ethical person, and don't like if others wouldn't view them that way, but again... who cares what other people think?
Because it feels more personal? Because "you're an immoral person" cuts more deeply then "you are wasting your money" ? And, because it feels more personal, the conversation gets heated more quickly? (This seems to happen with a few topics: eating animals, religion, ...)
I'm not entirely sure, and you have a point. When I'm reading a thread about ... blenders, say, I read up to the "YOU ARE AN IDIOT IF YOU'RE WASTING YOUR MONEY ON ANYTHING MORE THEN $5 from the thrift store" and then laugh and step out. Perhaps if I'd just bought a Vitamix, I'd take it more personally...
And I care what (some) other people think because it's tough to find a community of folks who try to make reasoned, thoughtful decisions about what's ethical, and then try to live their ethical positions out every day. I've been living in the same place for 20 years, and while I feel like I have a network of those people around me in real life who I get to see sometimes, they're all out doing things, too! This place seems to have a higher-then-usual density of thoughtful, ethical inhabitants, who often have well-reasoned inspiring things to say. (Including you, ARS.)
-
No, I honestly don't see the connection. I feel my own posts on here in support of the GiveWell philosophy are about how well it meshes and overlaps with the MMM philosophy. Maybe it comes across as proselytizing but thats not my intention.
Curious as to whether MMM "proselytizing" gets the same reaction on this board? There are so many people with varying levels of opinions on what's good and moral within the MMM world. I'm really into what I've discovered about giving internationally, and am hoping to share and talk about it, just as some newcomers to MMM get excited and maybe a little overzealous about that. But that's nothing to argue about. It's just enthudiasm for an idea that I'd like to share. It doesn't seem out of place here, since it's about efficiency, and how to make the best use of money (in terms of helping the most people in the most effective way). It's not like I'm trying to convert people to believing Jesus has come back in the form of my pet monkey and can save us all from the evil underlords.
-
my understanding is that actually, those non rational donations don't decrease people's charitable giving
Do you have a source for this?
The link in the post above yours says the opposite.
I feel like common sense says the same thing; I'd think someone who donated several hundred to various ice bucket challenges when it came to other giving would think "I just cut that check for the ice bucket thing, I can't do this other charity right now."
As far as I can see, that link does not provide scientific research, but data points from one organization. I have tried to find science backing or refuting what that article claims, but couldn't find it. But I found this linkedin piece, where data points from a different organization appears to show no such correlation: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140819191552-30400366-funding-cannibalism-and-moral-licensing-my-response/
Even if the first article is correct, (and the second one wrong,) article #1 claims that "Research from my own non-profit, which raises money for the most effective global poverty charities, has found that, for every $1 we raise, 50˘ would have been donated anyway." That means that awareness raising will double the charitable giving in a society! In my eyes that means we should do more of it, not less.
My experience is not that one cannibalises the other. We give $X to Doctors without borders every month. That amount stays the same whether or not I decide to support a worker's union in South Africa one month, or Unicef the next month. That extra money comes from the spending budget.
-
I'm surpised this of all threads got moved to off-topic. MMM talks about charity and it seems like an integral part of being FI.
Topics discussing mice in your basement and annual vet visits seem far more off topic than this, but I guess it's a just a matter of what the mods are feeling like today.
-
Back to the OP, a least a somewhat...
I think I have a synthethic view of giving. Local and utilitarian.
"We" are in one of the richest societies on earth. Our dollars here can go a lot farther elsewhere in the world; PPP and all that. People here are not going to starve or be left in sub zero temperatures unless to some degree they choose to; however....
If someone who is very giving is also taking a more direct approach to their recipient to ensure it is not just going to be spent on frivolous things but toward education or paying down some mistakes (not for beer, casinos, and TVs). Or even just some more temporary relief (childcare?) the giving could actually foster the receiving individual to being capable of giving themselves. In a sense it is like the compound interest of charity.
Takes more effort than just writing a check. Like volunteering at the place you give. Or with the person you give to. Probably most effective with a neighbor/coworker/extended family as long a good relationship can be maintained. But if this isn't possible then I would agree the international giving is better.
-
As far as I can see, that link does not provide scientific research, but data points from one organization. I have tried to find science backing or refuting what that article claims, but couldn't find it. But I found this linkedin piece, where data points from a different organization appears to show no such correlation: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140819191552-30400366-funding-cannibalism-and-moral-licensing-my-response/
Even if the first article is correct, (and the second one wrong,) article #1 claims that "Research from my own non-profit, which raises money for the most effective global poverty charities, has found that, for every $1 we raise, 50˘ would have been donated anyway." That means that awareness raising will double the charitable giving in a society! In my eyes that means we should do more of it, not less.
My experience is not that one cannibalises the other. We give $X to Doctors without borders every month. That amount stays the same whether or not I decide to support a worker's union in South Africa one month, or Unicef the next month. That extra money comes from the spending budget.
I guess my issue isn't so much with the ALS organisation or the Peter Frates guy who started the ice bucket challenge - they are doing what they can to raise awareness and funds for their cause. Charity has to compete with all sorts of non-charitable products and services for your hard-earned dollar, and when all those other products and services invest heavily in marketing - including social media marketing - well, charity kind of has to too, doesn't it?
My issue is more with those people who give money to a cause solely because of its marketing/ice bucket challenge/other gimmick, and not because they have thought about it and make a considered decision of where best to apply their money. Which is exactly in line with MMM's objections to other types of spending as well - think carefully about where you spend/donate your money, and whether it is in line with your values and the most efficient way of spending/donating. If you do that, then we're good, even if I personally would choose to spend/donate my money elsewhere.
But, sadly, I suspect far more ice bucket challenge donors (and more people in general) are the type of people who just give a few bucks because they get tagged on social media or something and then start patting themselves on the back for giving to charity.
-
I think the issue is that there's ... at least the flavor ... of similar zealotry to the religion (and veganism) threads in here. There have definitely been several posts in this thread saying "the only moral way to be charitable is to give money to XXX." Even if that's leavened with a scoop of "but I'm not perfectly moral, and neither are you" it still feels like an absolutist, judgmental statement: It's fundamentalist in feeling.
I still don't get why this is unique or even something with commenting on.
Don't we do that with EVERYTHING?
"Here is my opinion on X. You are free to have your own opinion, but I am sharing my thoughts."
That's approximately...99% of all thoughts, ever. The other 1% being tautologies.
In this thread it's:
"Here's my opinion of what is moral/immoral. If you're doing things on one side of the line, I consider it a moral action. If you aren't, I consider it immoral."
In another thread it might be:
"Here's my opinion of what is/is not a waste of money. If you're doing things on one side of the line, I consider it a good use of money\. If you aren't, I consider it a waste of money."
In this thread, people are discussing and sharing where their moral lines are. It has no more, or less, judgement than any other thread where you share opinions. It may be that people take it more personally if they're on the other side of the line that someone puts out there, because everyone wants to think they're an ethical person, and don't like if others wouldn't view them that way, but again... who cares what other people think?
Because it feels more personal? Because "you're an immoral person" cuts more deeply then "you are wasting your money" ? And, because it feels more personal, the conversation gets heated more quickly? (This seems to happen with a few topics: eating animals, religion, ...)
I'm not entirely sure, and you have a point. When I'm reading a thread about ... blenders, say, I read up to the "YOU ARE AN IDIOT IF YOU'RE WASTING YOUR MONEY ON ANYTHING MORE THEN $5 from the thrift store" and then laugh and step out. Perhaps if I'd just bought a Vitamix, I'd take it more personally...
And I care what (some) other people think because it's tough to find a community of folks who try to make reasoned, thoughtful decisions about what's ethical, and then try to live their ethical positions out every day. I've been living in the same place for 20 years, and while I feel like I have a network of those people around me in real life who I get to see sometimes, they're all out doing things, too! This place seems to have a higher-then-usual density of thoughtful, ethical inhabitants, who often have well-reasoned inspiring things to say. (Including you, ARS.)
I was involved in this conversation at the beginning, but I've been away lately doing volunteer things...big volunteer things...in my own community. I just read this exchange, and jeninco, your thoughtful response knocks my socks off. I ♡ every word you wrote in response to ARS's razor sharp points. I've noticed your comments lately, and I have to say I very much enjoy what you add to the conversations. Thank you.
-
Feeling bad about someone else calling you immoral is a waste of time.
"It feels more personal when you call me immoral than when you say I'm wasting my money" is not a valid reason or justification for any behavior.
Evaluate, process, and adapt, if necessary.
In other words, there are two potential outcomes:
1) If you reflect, and decide they're right, you change, and don't have to feel bad, because now you're taking more ethical actions.
2) If you reflect, and decide they're wrong, you don't have to feel bad, because you're already choosing the ethical options.
(Or you can do what most people do, and not reflect, and bury your head in the sand, because it's a lot more comfortable. :) )
Either way, there's nothing to take personally. They're wrong, and you DGAF, or they're right, and you're grateful for having it pointed out.
I'll repeat: I think there's a lot of people who are acting immorally (that isn't to say they're an immoral person, but they're not acting as ethically as possible) that have participated in this thread. Myself included. I hope some people reflect on some of the points that have been made as to why, and change some of their giving behaviors. But if they decide they're happy with what they're doing, awesome! More power to them.
On a very related note, why take anything personally, ever, frankly.
-
Nice attitude, Arebelspy. How useful to maintain that in all areas of life.
-
I'm a bit of a charity begins at home type of person, but mostly I just do things differently at home than I do abroad.
For example, I like to donate time to local smaller charities but $$ to domestic&international charities for disaster relief, water cleanup, etc. I generally don't give a lot of dollars figuring I can do more later.
However, I also participate heavily in the Kiva Micro-loan agency. I figure the best way to support a country with a bunch of people with a bunch of problems is to help stimulate their economy through business finance. It gives small business a chance to grow when they wouldn't otherwise have the credit. I started doing this after I heard about TOMs putting some local people in some poor country out of work because they make shoes that no one will buy anymore. Charity in the wrong place just makes more people dependant on charity. I still don't know if I'm doing the best thing, but it doesn't seem wrong?
-
I'm a bit of a charity begins at home type of person, but mostly I just do things differently at home than I do abroad.
For example, I like to donate time to local smaller charities but $$ to domestic&international charities for disaster relief, water cleanup, etc. I generally don't give a lot of dollars figuring I can do more later.
However, I also participate heavily in the Kiva Micro-loan agency. I figure the best way to support a country with a bunch of people with a bunch of problems is to help stimulate their economy through business finance. It gives small business a chance to grow when they wouldn't otherwise have the credit. I started doing this after I heard about TOMs putting some local people in some poor country out of work because they make shoes that no one will buy anymore. Charity in the wrong place just makes more people dependant on charity. I still don't know if I'm doing the best thing, but it doesn't seem wrong?
I also believe that microfinancing is the best way to support people in developing countries. It lets people decide for themselves what they need, and encourages folk to take action in their own communities. Why do we need to hand out charity with all it's humiliations, when we can just give autonomy?
-
We've had long discussions on Kiva.
Many, including myself, have problems with their practices. Search the forums for "Kiva" for discussion.
Just wanted to mention in case you aren't aware of the issues with them... but if you do read, and are okay with it, and that's what you enjoy, more power to you! :)
-
We've had long discussions on Kiva.
Many, including myself, have problems with their practices. Search the forums for "Kiva" for discussion.
Just wanted to mention in case you aren't aware of the issues with them... but if you do read, and are okay with it, and that's what you enjoy, more power to you! :)
I definitely know that Kiva can be a problem, but I don't think it's a fault that sinks service totally. There are functions to filter potential loans by average cost to borrower and information about interest rates or lack thereof. It's definitely something you need to be constantly on the lookout for, but I've never felt that the potential for usury should discount the entire idea. I agree with the general sentiment that it's not a charity. Just like with picking a charity to find a "good one" you have to look around on Kiva to find actual value between the typical (and outright bad) loans.
I admit I did learn a few things on the forums while looking at previous Kiva discussions. But no one seemed to notice that there are gradations. Not every loan is 20-30% interest.