The Case for Selective Charity

My perspective on giving wisely

In our modern age, we are bombarded with calls to give. Charitable organizations tell us we have a moral duty to help the less fortunate, to donate large portions of our income to strangers, and to alleviate suffering wherever we find it. But does this hold up to scrutiny? Do we truly owe our resources to those we have never met, whose circumstances we cannot verify, and whose character remains a mystery?

I would argue that we do not. Charity is not an unconditional good. Like any other economic decision, it should be subject to careful evaluation—both in terms of effectiveness and morality. The uncomfortable truth that few want to admit is that most human beings are not inherently deserving of our charity. To be clear, this is not a blanket rejection of generosity. Rather, it is an argument for selective generosity—prioritizing helping those we know to be worthy, rather than indiscriminately scattering resources to the wind.

The Myth of Moral Obligation

Many moral philosophies, particularly some sects of utilitarianism, treat charity as an obligation. If you have resources and another person lacks them, the assumption goes, you should transfer wealth to maximize “social welfare.” But this line of reasoning is flawed in at least two ways.

First, it assumes that wealth transfers automatically improve the world. In reality, many charitable donations are counterproductive, funding ineffective or even harmful causes. Misallocated aid can breed dependency, distort local economies, or sustain corrupt institutions. Second, it assumes that recipients are morally worthy of our help. But are they? I would argue that the majority of individuals display character deficiencies such as envy, dishonesty, a lack of interest in the pursuit of truth, and an unreflective ambition for social status, often prioritizing personal advancement over integrity or character development. Even innocent children today will one day grow up to be such individuals. Thus, if we fail to ask questions about deservedness, we risk rewarding irresponsibility or worse, immorality, and punishing those who make better choices and are, in fact, better people.

Who Deserves Our Help?

This brings us to the key question: Who, if anyone, should we help? The answer is not “humanity at large” but rather a much smaller, more specific set of individuals—those for whom we have strong reasons to believe our help will be both deserved and effective.

The people we know best—our family, close friends, and some community members—are the ones we are in the best position to help wisely. We know their character, their struggles, and their potential. If a friend has fallen on hard times due to misfortune, supporting them is both moral and practical. Similarly, if a family member needs assistance and has demonstrated a commitment to improving their situation, our help is likely to be well-used.

By contrast, giving to distant strangers—whether through foreign aid or impersonal philanthropy—introduces massive information and incentive problems. It is costly to learn about the circumstances and character of those we seek to help, and the basic math works against us since the characters of so many human beings are so deeply flawed. Without critical knowledge about what type of people they are and how they will use our resources, we are effectively throwing darts in the dark, hoping some of our charity lands in the right place.

The Efficiency of Selective Giving

A final point is that targeted charity aligns with our natural instincts. We care most about the well-being of those closest to us. Giving to a friend who has been hardworking but unlucky means we are investing in someone whose welfare we value. This is a far better use of resources than giving blindly to unknown strangers, who may not only squander what they receive but who might not have deserved it in the first place.

Conclusion

Charity is not an obligation, and indiscriminate giving is not a virtue. While it is good to help others, we must first determine who is deserving of our help and where our resources will do the most good. Those closest to us—whose character and needs we understand—should usually be the primary recipients of our generosity. Beyond that, if we choose to help others, we should do so with great caution, recognizing the opportunity cost of scarce funds, the limits of our knowledge and the risks of misallocated aid. In short, true charity is not about giving to the least well off—it is about giving selectively and wisely.