Why it makes sense to pick one charity |
July 14th, 2010 |
| ea, money |
In discussion about my posts on organic
food it was pointed out that my argument depends on the idea
that one should only give to one charity. Because I believe that
oxfam would do more good with my money than a make
food organic charity, I claim that I (and others) should give
money only to oxfam and not the MFO-charity.
The "one charity" argument makes a lot of sense to me: if my best estimate of how much good oxfam will do with my money is substantially greater than the amount of good some other charity will do, why should I give to that other charity when I could be more effective by giving to oxfam? More detailed arguments on this point are also out there:
Referenced in: Government Share of Donations
The "one charity" argument makes a lot of sense to me: if my best estimate of how much good oxfam will do with my money is substantially greater than the amount of good some other charity will do, why should I give to that other charity when I could be more effective by giving to oxfam? More detailed arguments on this point are also out there:
- Slate: Giving Your All
- Thinking Beyond Competition: The One Charity Argument and the End of Poverty
- GiveWell: Denying the Choice
Update 2013-02-26: I've expanded on this some.
Comment via: facebook