Why give to charity but never give people on the street—and is that wrong?
A question about giving
The reader says they believe they should help people who are much poorer than they are. They donate 10 percent of their salary to charities they consider effective at preventing early deaths linked to poverty.
In a city with visible homelessness, they are often asked for money. They wonder whether giving directly is less effective than supporting aid such as malaria bednets and pills, and feel callous when they ignore requests.
When optimization takes over
The columnist suggests the dilemma is not necessarily a clash between two core values. Helping people is the value, the columnist says, while the drive to maximize the impact of every donation is a strategy that can look like a value.
The column traces optimization’s influence to utilitarian thinking that ethics and economics should aim to maximize happiness or satisfaction. It describes how the same impulse appears in productivity culture, wellness advice and technology that measures bodily functions.
Effectiveness has limits
The columnist says optimization can be useful in charitable giving because some organizations achieve more than others. Effective altruists point to estimates that the most effective charities produce 100 times more benefit than average charities.
But, the column argues, optimization can be pushed too far when people try to use it in every part of life. The reader’s focus on helping the neediest also raises a question: what counts as need, and should financial need be the only measure?
Key points
- The reader donates 10 percent of their salary to charities aimed at preventing early deaths from poverty.
- They are unsure whether to give money to people soliciting them in a city with visible homelessness.
- The columnist distinguishes helping others as a value from optimizing charitable impact as a strategy.
- The column warns that applying optimization everywhere can compromise other values.