I've recently been introduced to the effective altruism movement.http://www.effectivealtruism.org/about-eahttps://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism The idea is to judge which charities to support by the amount of actual good created per dollar donated. It's a very scientifically and economically oriented way of evaluating charities.
This leads to some counter-intuitive ideas:
1) Charities with the lowest administrative/advertising costs may not be the most effective place to donate;
2) While donating your time may feel good, donating your money may do more good;
3) The marginal value of additional contributions to highly funded charities may be very small;
4) Comparing the retaliative importance of charity's goals is fundamentally important;
5) Evaluating the actual results of the charity's actions is crucial;
6) The value of all human life is equal, therefore priority should not be given to people in first world countries when evaluating effectiveness.
What is not emphasized is dollars spent on charity or how good inside the particular charity makes you feel.
Give Well has a list of very effective but underfunded charities. It's a small list and all of them are charities focused on the third world.
I have much sympathy for this kind of thinking and it has caused my husband and I to reevaluate where we donate. However, we are not entirely sold. For one thing, part of our motivation for giving is to make things better right where we are, so we still donate locally as well as globally, though we are taking a second look how effective our local charities are compared to other local charities. And some of our charities are more like payment for services rendered such and Oregon Public Broadcasting (or this forum) and we will continue that kind of giving as well.
Where do you give money, and more importantly why there?
This leads to some counter-intuitive ideas:
1) Charities with the lowest administrative/advertising costs may not be the most effective place to donate;
2) While donating your time may feel good, donating your money may do more good;
3) The marginal value of additional contributions to highly funded charities may be very small;
4) Comparing the retaliative importance of charity's goals is fundamentally important;
5) Evaluating the actual results of the charity's actions is crucial;
6) The value of all human life is equal, therefore priority should not be given to people in first world countries when evaluating effectiveness.
What is not emphasized is dollars spent on charity or how good inside the particular charity makes you feel.
Give Well has a list of very effective but underfunded charities. It's a small list and all of them are charities focused on the third world.
I have much sympathy for this kind of thinking and it has caused my husband and I to reevaluate where we donate. However, we are not entirely sold. For one thing, part of our motivation for giving is to make things better right where we are, so we still donate locally as well as globally, though we are taking a second look how effective our local charities are compared to other local charities. And some of our charities are more like payment for services rendered such and Oregon Public Broadcasting (or this forum) and we will continue that kind of giving as well.
Where do you give money, and more importantly why there?
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
