teo123 wrote: ↑
Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:16 am
Jebus wrote:Are you trying to make the point that altruism is always ineffective?
No, I am saying that, given what I know, it seems that it is innefective or even counter-productive most of the time, and that it is therefore immoral. Sometimes it accidentally has good consequences, but that doesn't exactly justify it.
It wouldn't be immoral if the intentions were good.
Writing that charity is counter-productive most of the time and that any positive consequences are accidental is a bit crazy. I think it may rarely have negative consequences. Such would include donating money to an addict who ends up spending the money on his/her addiction or to donate to a charity with criminal intent. However, these are rarities.
I think the following two options are much more common:
1. People donating to charities thinking all (or most) of the money they donated will go to those in need, whereas, in reality, most of the money go to the charity's overhead costs.
2. People donating to charities with an end goal that benefits either very few a lot (like the Make a Wish Foundation), or very many little (like the Notre Dame restructuring project) instead of choosing a charity that benefits very many very much (like the Humane Society).
Here are a couple of personal questions for you:
Do you know of any efficient charities that bring positive consequences?
If so, do you donate any of your money to that charity?