Is it wrong to donate to the dog charity?

Great Debates
21

I don’ t understand the first part of this argument. Can you explain the causal link between more charity and more corruption/inefficiency? Also the link between more inefficiency (caused by greater overall giving) and more death?

As for the second part, I wonder what assumptions led you to the conclusion that increased charity means decreasing marginal utility. Suppose, for example, that everyone buys dosages of antibiotics as their charitable donation. At no point does the utility of each dosage paid for decrease until you’ve solved the problems of Malaria, TB, etc. Indeed, because of the nature of infectious disease, there might be a stronger argument that the utility actually increases with more donations because the smaller the population with the disease the less it will spread.

Of course, it’s a little bit more complicated than just buying antibiotics (although that alone would save millions). But even when you get to the point in a problem where you’ve done everything you can with the present infrastructure, you can start spending money building that infrastructure. I just don’t see how decreasing marginal utility is an inevitable result, or even a likely one.

[Bolding Mine]

I understand this argument as a hypothetical, but in the real world it seems a little silly. It’s not like good organizations are just throwing food at hungry people and hoping it sticks. Yeah, you’ve gotta avoid bad organizations just like any other aspect of life, but you aren’t taking a chance that you’ll save a life when you donate to most organizations.

22

He makes a point (building businesses is good for society, and building businesses takes large concentrations of money), but most of his argument is just plain silly. Money doesn’t do anyone any good unless it’s being spent; its power is in its motion (it does a small amount of moving with a bank, because they get to loan part of it out, but that’s relatively small). Stock gains are particularly guilty of this; most of that money doesn’t even exist until you sell off the stock.

Let’s take his example: “Would Sam Walton have done as much for the poor by giving all his money to charity? I don’t think so.”

I do think so. Most of the Walton family wealth is Wal-Mart stock, held since the IPO in 1970. It’s grown, both on paper and in real-life terms (i.e. if you shut down the company, sold everything, paid off the debts, and divided the cash among shareholders), but most of it doesn’t exist. Wal-Mart’s market cap is about $200 billion, but the real-world value of that is a relatively paltry $53 billion (from their recent annual report). The other $147 billion is an abstraction, floating around in various computers around the world. The Waltons own about 40% of the company, so you’re talking about a little less than $59 billion dollars that isn’t accomplishing anything (any amount they take out to pay for their personal expenses is a rounding error at this point). The other 20 billion is what’s actually making new buildings, creating jobs, wreaking havoc on other companies, etcetcetc.

If you give it to a foundation, they spend it. They sell the stock (turning hypothetical money into actual money) and use the proceeds to do… whatever their particular charitable goal is. Wal-mart doesn’t miss a beat, because other, presumably smaller investors, buy that stock and will eventually cash that out and spend it (possibly down the line, at retirement, but the money will still circulate a lot more than it does sitting in the Walton bin, where it doesn’t even exist yet). There is a whole other Wal-mart of economic stimulus (or destruction, depending on your point of view) sitting untapped.

This, of course, is all institutional-level giving. I’m going to assume most of us here actually have to justify our existences and work for our livings. Ludovic’s hypothetical point of decreasing marginal utility, where keeping it for yourself is better for the world, is so far out of our reach that it’s not worth mentioning. There is a very recognizable point where it’s better for you, because as much as it’s important to give back to society for the opportunities society gives to us, we are entitled to the fruits of our labor. This other point, however, is a very different animal.

To address the OP: No, there’s nothing wrong with giving to an animal shelter. We’re only human, after all; the scope of some of our problems is so enormous that working against them seems futile. Easing the small troubles is more noticable, and sometimes that helps make the big ones bearable.

23

The animals are not responsible for what happened to them. You can make a case that most people with aids have done something to contribute to their condition. Dogs and cats are pretty innocent and deserve help.

24

I dunno man. Aren’t majority of AIDS cases in Africa?

25

You know-- I just thought and realized this could be misunderstood.

I meant that the conditions in Africa are a major contributer to the spread of the disease: lack of medical care and a uneducated populace. Many of the victims, women and children, did nothing “risky” other than get married or be born.

26

I can’t believe that HIV/AIDS is still this stigmatized. No wonder we can’t get a coherent national policy on the subject.

27

I said most to avoid this. Does risky sexual behavior add to the count or not? Does needle sharing and drug use contribute.? You dont get AIDS from toilet seats or kissing.

28

Your position that most people with AIDS got it because they knew the risks of infection but engaged in risky activity anyway is just wrong. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of children infected with HIV every year–many of whom are infected at birth.

But what’s even more absurd is that you think that engaging in unprotected sex or drug use means that you’re less worthy of help than a dog.

Argue all you want that we can’t balance every charitable decision against the best possible good. I buy that. We have to accept that we’re not always doing the most good with our dollars to even function in society. But don’t pretend that you are actually maximizing the good you do with your money by helping animals instead of people.

29

I think I am maximizing the good I do by giving where I give. That’s why I give where I give.

“The good I do” is subjective, not objective.

30

Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think that gonzomax himself believes this, but was simply saying that some might argue that.

And you better BELIEVE there’s still a huge stigma with AIDS/HIV.

31

You don’t think some people’s idea of “the good” is objectively wrong? I think a simple walk through history proves that point. We might disagree about what constitutes “the good,” but that doesn’t make it subjective.

Well, if he doesn’t believe it, then he can join me in condemnation of that belief.

32

Yeah, it does.

Funny thing about objective standards: They change all the time.

33

So, whether the earth orbits the sun is also subjective in your book? The fact that standards change is not evidence one way or another.

I’m not going to debate the merits of moral relativism with you. Though, it isn’t clear to me why you would even post to a thread like this if you believe that all discussion of ethics is just hand-waving. If you believe that ethics is just a matter of whatever you happen to believe, then there is no sense in arguing about ethics.

34

Prove your ethics are right and mine are wrong. You can’t. There is nothing objective about them, just your gut feeling, and some societal weight.

To paraphrase your own statement: Don’t pretend that your beliefs are objective. They are simply your beliefs.

35

Then why are you in this thread? Just to make sure no one accidentally debates ethics?

36

Um, because a debate in no way requires objective truth? That’s why this is in GD, not GQ.

Why are you attempting to police this thread? My participation does not require your permission.

37

But your take on ethics is that it’s just like favoring a particular wine over another. That isn’t really debate, at least in the sense I’m using the word.

I’m not policing anything. The point of my question is that it seems to me that asserting something one way or the other on the issue of whether a particular act is wrong suggests that you don’t *really *believe in the moral relativism you espouse.

I, for one, am done with this hijack. If you’d like to continue to debate the merits of moral relativism, I’d be happy to do so in another thread. Sorry OP.

38

Bullshit. Something needn’t be objective to be important.

As for starting a new thread, no thank you. You seem to be treading old, tired ground with this argument, and unless you have some proof, I’m not interested.