A yes to, charitable giving to those closest in our immediate nucleus. Beyond that, if one feels compelled to chose and support a cause, rigorous analysis of an organization's impact and financial management is crucial for informed and justifiable giving.
Well reasoned and entirely easy for me to agree. For me, morality is straightforward, as I discuss in "Morality and Capitalism: A Dialogue on Freedom," my little book. The Moral Imperative is this: "do not compel unjustly." Human behavior in accord with this imperative is moral. Being moral is a necessary condition for being virtuous.
One may be moral without engaging in charity. Charity may or may not be virtuous, just as you say, if we accept the definition that virtue is habitual, praiseworthy behavior.
Thanks for trying to get us to think more clearly about charity. The issues you raised, such as who to give to and how effective that is, are really important considerations.
That said, your advice seems overcautious. The search costs we save by narrowing our focus may not outweigh the lost benefits to those we overlook. In fact, I have a hard time believing it is even close, though the history of development aid is disconcerting.
A yes to, charitable giving to those closest in our immediate nucleus. Beyond that, if one feels compelled to chose and support a cause, rigorous analysis of an organization's impact and financial management is crucial for informed and justifiable giving.
Well reasoned and entirely easy for me to agree. For me, morality is straightforward, as I discuss in "Morality and Capitalism: A Dialogue on Freedom," my little book. The Moral Imperative is this: "do not compel unjustly." Human behavior in accord with this imperative is moral. Being moral is a necessary condition for being virtuous.
One may be moral without engaging in charity. Charity may or may not be virtuous, just as you say, if we accept the definition that virtue is habitual, praiseworthy behavior.
Well said!
Mr. Broughel,
Thanks for trying to get us to think more clearly about charity. The issues you raised, such as who to give to and how effective that is, are really important considerations.
That said, your advice seems overcautious. The search costs we save by narrowing our focus may not outweigh the lost benefits to those we overlook. In fact, I have a hard time believing it is even close, though the history of development aid is disconcerting.
Is the market for charity that perverse?
Greg Barbieri
Thanks for your comment. The issue is primarily that it's not a market. Most non-market settings produce outcomes that are pretty dysfunctional.