So, who's up for a good old-fashioned ethics discussion? I promise there'll be plenty for
us to talk about. Like charity! Giving to charity is something you might think would
be very uncontroversial, and almost universally accepted as a good thing. But you'd be wrong.
I know I was! As it turns out, people still manage to find reasons to complain about charities.
And I don't exclude myself from that, either. I've made it very clear that I don't think
people should donate to the Salvation Army because of their anti-gay policies and their
history of anti-gay campaigning, especially when there are comparable charities that don't
do this. But beyond simply pointing out the completely unnecessary bigotry of a charitable
organization, a lot of the complaints I've heard rise to the level of, frankly, incredible
assholism. Most of it seems to revolve around three central issues: The choice of which
causes should be supported, how efficient different charities are, and whether we should
even draw attention to charitable causes. As I've found out, people do get really worked
up about this. So, what is the best way for us to support charities, if indeed we even
should? First of all: How do we decide which causes to support? I ran into this argument
when I participated in a BlogTV event for an AIDS charity, and someone basically told
me that I shouldn't. Why would that be? Well, according to them, anyone who has AIDS must
have been "irresponsible" or "promiscuous", and AIDS is really just a "non-issue", relatively
speaking. And since, apparently, it's nothing but a "gay issue", I'm actually being "selfish"
by... helping people with AIDS.
See? Some people are nuts! But the implications of this had me wondering: Should AIDS charities
not receive any support at all, since they're just not important enough? Or, if not AIDS,
are there some causes that are so unimportant, we shouldn't give to them? In general, how
should we best allocate our resources? The same issue crops up with breast cancer awareness.
It's practically inevitable that someone will say, "what about lung cancer or prostate cancer?"
And suppose we do decide to donate to lung cancer or prostate cancer charities instead.
But wait -- then people would say, "what about breast cancer?"
"Hey ZJ, why don't you do a video about Islam? What are you, scared?"
"How dare you insult the prophet! I bet you wouldn't say that about Jesus!"
Yeah, I know how it is. So what do we do? Well, we could just determine whichever cause
does the most good, and throw all our money at it. Why would we want to give money to
something that does less good? The problem is that the rest of these causes can still
be important, even if they're not *as* important, and we can't just completely neglect them.
You can throw all the money in the world at heart disease, but it still won't cure AIDS.
So maybe our resources should be allocated to causes in proportion to their importance:
more funding goes to more important charities, and less goes to less important charities.
On one end, we would have the Steve Jobs Turtleneck Fund, and on the other end, permanent immortality
upgrades so that people just never die. And in between? Well, the rankings here are bound
to be somewhat subjective. But when it comes to issues that are roughly equal in importance,
like epilepsy versus diabetes, can't we just contribute based on our own personal preferences
of what *we* want to support? There's almost always going to be something more important,
but that doesn't mean everything else isn't important at all. And I don't think supporting
these causes is something deserving of criticism. What do you think? How should we best allocate
our resources? Second: What proportion of their proceeds should charities spend on administrative
expenses, such as fundraising activities and employee salaries? For example, someone decided
to argue with me because I... donated to Heifer International. I know, how irresponsible of
me. According to this person, who had a real hard-on for the Salvation Army, Heifer International
gives only 15% of its proceeds to actual charity services. And immediately I thought, wow,
wouldn't that be terrible if it were true. As it turns out, it's not. It's actually more
like 80%. And immediately I thought, wow, so you were just fucking lying, you fucking
lying fucker! Then they tried to tell me that the leader of the Salvation Army makes only
$13,000 a year. Or $20,000. Either way, it's an urban legend. But it made me think: Just
how much should they be paying their employees? The best answer would seem to be *nothing*,
so all their funding could go directly to charity services. But that wouldn't work,
because like everything else, charities have operating expenses. Instead, maybe they should
pay them as little as possible, so they can use as much as possible for charity services.
It seems to make sense. But what if that's not the best answer, either? Suppose that
throwing more money towards, say, fundraising campaigns helps bring in even more donations.
And suppose that paying the top employees a lot of money and giving them some really
decadent perks actually helps them to manage the charity even better, ultimately bringing
in donations that more than make up for it. It's easy to say, "Wow, that's a really exorbitant
salary for someone who runs a charity", but what if it's worth it? If spending more money
helps to make even more money, it would be a wise investment for an appropriate portion
of donations to go towards those administrative expenses. What would be appropriate? Probably
a level of spending that helps bring in more money than is being spent, but not beyond
the point where the returns are no longer worth it. So, the amount that goes toward
administrative expenses doesn't have to be as little as possible, but rather, as little
as necessary to achieve as much as possible. Is there anything wrong with that? And if
spending less meant less money available overall for actual charity services, how is that supposed
to be any better? Well, what do you think they should do? Finally: Are we allowed to
feel good about ourselves for helping charities? Or would it be better if we didn't? When I
was part of a fundraiser for Doctors Without Borders, someone left me a comment that basically
said, "Oh great, more atheists trying to make themselves look good by supporting charities."
Now isn't that interesting. So, if atheists don't give to charity, that means we're not
as charitable as religious people, right? But when we do support charities, it's nothing
but meaningless self-aggrandizement. What are we supposed to do? Well, I could be a
useless asshole who criticizes the people who promote charities while doing nothing
myself. But I think we can all agree that's less than optimal. So what is the best way
to support charities while also suppressing our egos as much as possible? How are we supposed
to promote any kind of fundraiser if it's always going to be taken as an act of self-promotion?
Really, the same accusation could be made against anyone, and if they're supporting
a charity anyway, their own self-interest or lack thereof can probably be considered
irrelevant. Or is it? What if their ego *is* a factor in why they're helping a charity?
Is that necessarily a bad thing? Might it actually be productive to appeal to someone's
ego, and tell them it'll make them look good, if it gets them to support charities? Isn't
that kind of like taking a questionable tendency and molding it into something that's actually
useful? We tend to be wary of people who help charities because they feel good about it,
rather than because it's the right thing to do. It seems like they might be doing the
right thing for the wrong reasons, because their motivation to be charitable is now dependent
upon whether it makes them feel good, instead of it simply being the right thing for them
to do. But what is it that makes them feel good about it? Most likely, because they're
helping people and doing a good thing. Even charities emphasize that the causes they promote
are important, and this would seem to imply that helping them is better than not helping
them. And if you do choose to help, why shouldn't you feel good about that? If it's a choice
between giving to charity and feeling good about it, and giving to charity and *not*
feeling good about it, why not go with the greater good all around? And if I'm compelled
to give $100 to a worthwhile cause because that's what it takes for me to feel good,
isn't that a really beneficial thing for everyone involved? I don't know. What do you think?
All in all, it seems like people will always find a reason to be a complete dick to you
over the most seemingly innocuous things. You can do everything "right", you can give
to the most important charity in the world that somehow pays its employees nothing, while
miraculously drawing no attention to yourself, and people will probably still hate you. And
as long as that's the case, then perhaps the most important question is: Why should I even
give a fuck?