The only charity that I donate any money to are a couple of dog rescues and a general animal shelter. Is this really a defensible thing to do with all the people dying of AIDS, starving, dying of malaria, etc in the world? Would my money be better spent helping people instead of dogs? The thing is I would rather help dogs. Does this show that there is something wrong with me?
Yup. Report for reprogramming immediately, Citizen.
Nah. Only humans should be “discontinued”, not dogs - right?
Unlike taxes, where you pay your money and someone else decides what to do with it, I think it’s entirely a personal choice. YOU decide where you want your contribution to go. What do you feel most comfortable with? Which would make you happiest?
I know some friends who enjoy the company of dogs better than people. To them, it isn’t a problem deciding.
Personally, what little contributions I make go either to the Nature Conservancy or the local library, and I have no conflict with that decision. In the past, I have contributed to animal welfare groups. I guess if I had friends with AIDS, I might contribute to medical research instead, but I don’t, so I don’t.
No, there is nothing wrong with you for doing that. Rescue organizations and shelters make the environment better for man and beast.
Better is a relative term here. You’re helping a charity. You’re not going to save the world by yourself, but you’re doing something. That’s what’s important.
If everyone gave all of their discretionary income to charities to only help other humans survive, there would still be some people just scraping by or dying due to the greater inefficienies and corruption that comes with greater donations, not to mention the decreasing marginal utility of such massive donations. Whereas at that point a small donation to help animals would do much more good.
Similarly, there comes a certain point in charity where you would do better in keeping the money for yourself because the marginal utility of your donation would be better served in keeping you happy than in the offhand chance it would save a life or prevent disease.
Once we have those established it’s just a matter of degree.
A dog rescued in a shelter might wind up in the home of someone who cannot afford to buy a dog, and might give that person or his or her family great comfort. So, your donation could well be helping people also, indirectly.
I feel that anything you do to make the world a less horrible place is admirable. The needs are infinite, pick a topic and do what you can, when you can.
So well stated!
I donate each Christmas to the library’s book fund and a local no-kill shelter. That’s where my passions are, and that’s where I think my money does the most good.
There are two sleeping rescued dogs in the room with me right this minute. Thank you. They make my world a better place.
As long as that dog charity is not doing evil with your money, then it’s not wrong to donate to it, just as it’s not wrong to donate the money to a people shelter, your bank account, or your DVD collection. It’s your money; spend it how you like.
Yes, there is clearly something wrong with you. You should donate money to humans… specifically, you should donate your money only to me.
It’s in the best interest of all humans not to have feral animals roaming the streets.
You are also helping to create jobs, not only in the shelter, but in the vet clinics and pet food suppliers.
I firmly believe that by helping animals, you ARE helping people. We wouldn’t be here today without aid from the lowly beasts. Guide dogs, plow horses, dairy cows, etc. IIRC, there’s one theory that holds that the bubonic plague was as devastating as it was because one of the Popes at the time declared that cats were creatures of the devil, and demanded they be wiped out. Thus, but killing so many cats, the rodent population began to rise and well, nature took over from there. (I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it’s an interesting speculation).
I wouldn’t say you are wrong. It’s not a decision I would make, and I don’t give to animal charities, but it is an individual choice.
I think almost any charitable donation can be subjected to this kind of analysis, not just the difference between humans and animals. Why don’t I take the money I give to Amnesty International and give it to a clean water program - isn’t it more important to save the lives of people than stop them being tortured? The bottom line is there are always competing priorities, and as people have said, doing something can be seen as a good in and of itself.
That would be Pope Innocent VIII in 962.
[hijack]
There was another important factor to the rise in the rodent population. If you’ll look back through the historic records, you’ll see that plague often followed periods of famine. Rodents were driven by hunger into the urban centers in search of food.
[/hijack]
John Stossel would seem to agree…sometimes you can do more for society than giving to charity.
No. I personally don’t like dogs and would only be relieved if they were all in zoos with the meercats and bandicoots.
That said, charity is as much to comfort you and the pet owners, humans, as the dogs. Don’t feel guilt for charity.