Immoral philantrophy?

[kidcolin]

He isn't probably right, it's a completely wrong outlook.

Maybe I'm jaded from spending a lot of time working with the community service center when I was in college, and thus working closely with some charities and some wacky ideologues. I was very picky about what projects I wanted to get involved in. My selection criteria was asking myself these 3 questions:

1. Is this an important cause? (both in general and to me)
2. Is the project run effectively?
3. Will I enjoy working on it?

If any of these 3 was a resounding "no", I didn't waste my time. Some in the office found me to be a nuisance because of this. Others loved me though because the work I did do, I did very well.

You can apply similar criteria to your donation efforts. If you're handing out money to causes just based on need, you might as well sign off your ownership to your money. It's YOUR money. You need to put it to work as how you see fit.

And to reiterate: "need" is too slippery a slope. So you decide cancer is the worthiest cause. Well, which organization? They're all begging for money. They all "need" it. A lot of charitable organizations are big rackets, IMO. They're either inept and inefficient, or very corrupt.

So you narrow it down by picking causes close to you, and making informed decisions within that. That's how effective philanthropy and charity efforts work. Informed decisions made by the donors, based on personal beliefs and a strong assessment of those they donate to.

[Gildwulf]

Immoral is the wrong word here, you are probably looking for 'self-interested' or 'discriminatory'.

[El Diablo]

ah,

This is not directly related to your question, but a big part of the reason I give charity and volunteer is to make myself feel good. This element of self-interest influences where I decide to devote my resources. Nothing immoral aobut that.

[Golden_Rhino]

[ QUOTE ]
I try not to give to cancer charities like breast cancer because as a function of how many people are affected by it, vs other illnesses, it is way overfunded. Not that it is a bad cause at all, just more good can come from donating to other forms of research.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if any charity is overfunded, but I see what you mean. I like to give to charity a couple of times a year, but since my own finances are tight, I can't give as much as usual. I found a couple of small charities and gave them $50 each. Not a lot of money, but what I could afford. My rationale was that $50 could help a small (5 room group home), a lot more than it could help a huge charity.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
ah,

This is not directly related to your question, but a big part of the reason I give charity and volunteer is to make myself feel good. This element of self-interest influences where I decide to devote my resources. Nothing immoral aobut that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and I think it does address his question. This was the struggle I had with people in the social work sector. Many try their hardest to act like this isn't the case, as if it subtracted from the cause. This element of self-interest is what creates a lot of success when it comes to non-profits and volunteering.

[kidcolin]

Last point for a while as I'm posting too much in this thread:

"I don't know if any charity is overfunded, but I see what you mean."

Of course it can be. When a non-profit has a large budget, it finds ways to spend the money, and often ineffectively. Note, I'm not commenting specifically on any cancer foundations, as I'm not sure of the details there. Just a general point.

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
I try not to give to cancer charities like breast cancer because as a function of how many people are affected by it, vs other illnesses, it is way overfunded. Not that it is a bad cause at all, just more good can come from donating to other forms of research.

[/ QUOTE ]
A bit off-topic, but reading this made me think. Is there any merit to the idea that because a scientific endeavour is "overfunded" that you will actually do MORE good by donating to that one rather than something else that is "underfunded" and will probably continue to remain so, since making any significant scientific progress in areas like cancer research are so ridiculously expensive?

[Senor Choppy]

It depends on your idea of what is moral.

If you believe it to be immoral to use resources wastefully, then you're obligated to do the maximum good with the money or time you devote to charitable causes. If not, doing good is doing good and there's nothing immoral about it, regardless of how you discriminate between charitable causes.

[RichC.]

I typically only give to help out Vietnam Vets and Wounded Warriors from Iraq and Afghanistan. Is this immoral because these are who I feel are more deserving? No. Is it immoral because I am also a Vet? No. Am I biased? Yes. I also donate to cancer research. Also not immoral.

We donate to certain charities because many times we ourselves have been affected by these same problems or situations. Not because we are immoral, but it is because we feel strongly about these issues. My dad is a Vietnam Vet, Iraq for me, and cancer seems to run in the family. We cant help out every charity, so we make a choice, and choices are based on our life experience and those people around us.