Peter Singer : How Much Should I Donate to Charity?

[DocWatts]

 

Haven't seen Peter Singer or Effective Altruism mentioned or discussed much in this forum, so I thought I might make a thread to the topic.

If you're unfamiliar with Peter Singer, he's an Australian moral philosopher and philanthropist who's one of the founders of the Effective Altruism movement.
 

The basic thrust of his argument is that Affluent people (by this he means middle class and wealthy people living in Developed countries) have a moral obligation to contribute some portion of their wealth to combatting Global Poverty, for the following reasons :

(1) 734 million people are still living in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $2 a day, adjusted for purchasing power parity), and do not have access  to the basic necessities of life (clean drinking water, food, shelter, electricity, basic health care, basic education). 

(2) Evidence based charitable programs targeted towards people living in extreme poverty parts of the world has proven to be a highly successful and cost effective way of combating human misery. It costs very little money to immunize someone against a deadly disease, or to provide someone clean drinking water. 

(3) The one billion or so affluent people of the world have far more than they need to live a happy and fulfilling life, and can make a  highly meaningful
contribution to ending global poverty at relatively little cost to themselves. One estimate from his book is that a yearly transfer of $130 - 200 from every affluent person in the world would be enough to lift every person in the world out of extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $2 a day). This amounts to less than %1 of the annual income for a middle class person living in the United States.

(4) In addition, people living in developed countries have directly harmed the global poor by contributing to Climate Change. This is a problem that the global poor have had little hand in contributing to, but will be a continued hardship going forward as it's burdens will be shouldered disproportionately by people who live in warmer regions and depend on agriculture to support themselves and their families. Chartable donations from affluent people in developed nations can also be thought of us a sort of reparation, or a small measure of justice, from this point of view.

* This is a side note, but on the topic of putting money towards political advocacy groups to work for Systemic Change rather than Charitable Giving is something he's open to, but he challenges the person considering this to have a clear vision for how to effect political change, and to have a realistic avenue for implement said changes.  

___________________________________________

Understanding psychology and the limits of human nature, and that not everyone is a saint willing to make huge sacrifices for someone far away, he proposes a progressive Giving Scale (structured in a similar way to progressive taxation) for what a reasonable person might consider giving to charity without imposing too great of a burden on themselves. Understand that there are just super general guidelines to give people an idea of where to begin rather than a hard rule. And of course this will vary depending on one's circumstances.

Peter Singer's Suggested Charitable Giving Scale (amounts are given in US dollars) :

• $40,00–$81,000: 1%
   
• $81,001–$140,000: 1% of the first $81,000 and 5% of the remainder
   
• $140,001–$320,000: 1% of the first $81,0005% of the next $59,000, and 10% of the remainder 
   
• $320,001–$480,000: 1% of the first $81,000, 5% of the next $59,000, 10% of the next $180,000, and 15% of the remainder 
   
• $480,001–$2,000,000:1% of the first $81,000, 5% of the next $59,000, 10% of the next $180,000, 15% of the next $160,000, and 20% of the remainder 
   
• $2,000,001-$11,000,000: 1% of the first $81,000, 5% of the next $59,000,10% of the next $180,000, 15% of the next $160,000, 20% of the next $1,520,000, and 25% of the remainder 
   
• $11,000,001—$53,000,000: 1% of the first $81,000, 5% of the next $59,000, 10% of the next $180,000, 15% of the next $160,000, 20% of the next $1,520,000, 25% of the next $9,000,000, and 33.3% of the remainder 
   
• OVER $53,000,000: 1% of the first $81,000, 5% of the next $59,000, 10% of the next $180,000, 15% of the next $160,000, 20% of the next $1,520,000, 25% of the next $9,000,000, 33.3% of the next $42,000,000, and 50% of the remainder. 

___________________________________________________________________________

I find his argument really compelling (and have for some time now), but I am curious as to listen to other perspectives on the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[commie]

If this scale is for income, the amounts are ridiculously low (my personal scale so far has been around 50% over 15K and substantial but varying amounts occasionally exceeding 100% under that). And a second scale for wealth is needed.

The whole notion is silly anyway. The rich have that money because they're taking it from others, which is their role in this economy anyway. And if some rich people decide to give away a lot of money, others are going to become richer than them which means there is an inbuilt tendency for the rich as a class to lower the gross amount they give away. Therefore it's not their responsibility to give it away but the responsibility of the people to take it away from them.

[DocWatts]

@commieContributing to end global poverty if you're fortunate enough to live in an affluent nation and advocating for social change isn't mutually exclusive, and I'd argue that both are necessary. And yes the amounts are quite low, but if that's being raised from hundreds of millions of people, it amounts to more money than you would think (if the above scale with its very modest values was adopted by people living in affluent countries it would amount to $600 billion dollars a year, which obviously dwarfs what countries are currently spending on aid to developing countries).

Also this gives something concrete and tangible that almost any conscientious person in an affluent country can do to make the world a better place. And of course the rich have money because they're siphoning it from others, but what's an average person in a developed country going to do about it? Most middle class or even moderately well off people aren't in a position to shift the entire structure of our society (even those of us that happen to live in Democracies), these things take time. Often it takes the dying off of a previous generation that was hostile to change for society to move forward.

Those numbers above were made with concessions to human psychology in a consequentialist framework, with the hope that by asking a reasonable amount that's sustainable and not detrimental at all to someone's quality of life, more people will be willing to contribute.

Edited October 14, 2020 by DocWatts

[commie]

10 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

if the above scale with its very modest values was adopted by people living in affluent countries it would amount to $600 billion dollars a year, which obviously dwarfs what countries are currently spending on aid to developing countries

It's not going to be adopted obviously, which makes this pretense of rationality ludicrous.

It's obviously much easier to get public actors to commit to something. As a matter of fact, the official sector is way ahead of the private sector in providing pandemic-related debt relief for instance.

10 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Those numbers above were made with concessions to human psychology in a consequentialist framework

Excuses for selfishness, dressed up in fancy but empty words.

[Leo Gura]

You can't solve poverty simply by handing out cash. It's a deeper systemic, infrastructural, and mind problem.

[Preety_India]

 

Money needs to be properly mobilized through to end economic disparity where some people are paid peanuts for their hard work whereas others make tons of money and hoard it.. 

A lot of money gets concentrated in the hands of the few just like how power gets concentrated in the hands of the few 

 

The world will become truly democratic when wealth disparity will end 

Till then charity can only do so much and is not a valid solution, just a stopgap. 

 

[DocWatts]

1 minute ago, Preety_India said:

Money needs to be properly mobilized through to end economic disparity where some people are paid peanuts for their hard work whereas others make tons of money and hoard it.. 

A lot of money gets concentrated in the hands of the few just like how power gets concentrated in the hands of the few 

The world will become truly democratic when wealth disparity will end 

Till then charity can only do so much and is not a valid solution, just a stopgap.

I actually happen to agree with this, but at the same time I realize that the kind of the sort of large scale changes needed for a more just and equitable world are going to take time; what's a realistic time frame for an overhaul of the global economic system, and how many people aren't meeting their human potential until that happens? Especially if you happen to take a development lens towards looking at the world's problems, it should be apparent that the timescales we're looking at are likely to be generational.

Thinking about it as an either/or dichotomy between Social Activism and supporting effective Charities is the fundamentally the wrong mindset to take in my view. Charitable work isn't meant to be substitute for advocating for a more just world, but rather a supplement to it.

Organizations with targeted aid towards alleviating global poverty have literally helped millions of the most needy people in the world; some of their successes include the virtual elimination of Smallpox and Guinea Worm. The number of people living in extreme poverty is around half of what it was just thirty years ago (this wasn't entirely due to the charitable work by NGOs, but targeted charitable aid played a significant role in this).

It's also important to keep in mind that this is targeted aid, using an evidence driven model to identify where aid can do the most good per dollar, and a relatively modest amount of money can immunize a large number of people from deadly and preventable diseases, or provide the support networks to help lift people out of poverty and become self sufficient.

"A society with more justice needs less charity" is a sentiment I agree with, but at the same time it's important to recognize that we don't live in an ideal world, and there are huge obstacles to implementing a more just system across the entire planet. Yes billionaires shouldn't exist, but long as they do, isn't it worthwhile that some number of them are choosing to give away almost all of their wealth for worthwhile causes? Asking some portion of people in affluent nations to donate a small part of their income to help those in need can make a meaningful impact in the world.

 

 

[TrustTheProcess]

@Leo Gura NGO's have played a massive role in improving material conditions in Africa and Southeast Asia over the past half century or so. 

The trick is to not waste your money on some bogus and inefficient organization. Do your research people!!!! read Doing Good Better by William MacAskall to learn more

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You can't solve poverty simply by handing out cash. It's a deeper systemic, infrastructural, and mind problem.

Of course, and obviously that's going to require a Systemic Solution as the world continues to develop, but it's also something that's not going to happen overnight.

Also isn't the idea of just handing out cash to people the whole idea behind Universal Basic Income?

[Preety_India]

@DocWatts yes! 

As a supplement it's good. 

But sometimes it can overshadow the need for systemic change. 

Because charity distracts from real work!!! 

It makes people automatically assume that charity is the only way. 

Charity is a more stage Turquoise in my opinion. 

 

Whereas bringing a systemic change is more of a stage Yellow thing. Systems and models. 

This is a good example of how a higher stage is distracting from a lower stage work. 

For example if I talk about Green activism in a rigid unhealthy stage Blue it's not going to work. It will just be a bypass. 

A small bridge. Of course it would mean I'm bringing some awareness to the issue I'm fighting. 

But it won't mean systemic change. Systemic change will happen when the Blue is shifted from rigid unhealthy to flexible Healthy and functional. Then my Green needs will be accommodated in it. 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, louhad said:

NGO's have played a massive role in improving material conditions in Africa and Southeast Asia over the past half century or so.

I don't dispute that.

[Preety_India]

7 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Also isn't the idea of just handing out cash to people the whole idea behind Universal Basic Income?

This is not true at all. 

 

 

 

Handing  out cash = I give you money, take it. I do you a favor 

 

Universal Basic Income  = You deserve the right to this income as a citizen, this is your universal right. 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Preety_India

[DocWatts]

3 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

This is not true at all. 

Handing  out cash = I give you money, take it. I do you a favor 

Universal Basic Income  = You deserve the right to this income as a citizen, this is your universal right. 

Yeah, well you know what... that strikes me as true, point well taken.

The framework and motivation between UBI and Direct Giving through charities have a fundamental difference in their motivations, which matters, but they should still be comparable in the actual effect is has on the person receiving the transfer (whether it's UBI or ongoing cash transfers through a Direct Giving program).

Edited October 14, 2020 by DocWatts

[Apparition of Jack]

One of the benefits of charity isn’t just for the people receiving the money, but also the people giving. Donating to charity as part of your lifestyle helps you not get too attached to money and lets you see what things are important to spend money on and what things aren’t. I think it’s why something like Islam makes giving to charity one of its 5 precepts, since it moves you away from materialism.

[DocWatts]

26 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

One of the benefits of charity isn’t just for the people receiving the money, but also the people giving. Donating to charity as part of your lifestyle helps you not get too attached to money and lets you see what things are important to spend money on and what things aren’t. I think it’s why something like Islam makes giving to charity one of its 5 precepts, since it moves you away from materialism.

That's a very good point. I think it also helps one be aware of thier own privilege when considering the needs of others, and become a more compassionate person.