Most donors say they want to “help people”. If that’s true, they should try to distribute their resources to help people as much as possible.
This is not a valid argument. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise unless you assume that “help people” means “help people as much as possible”. But it doesn’t.
Nothwithstanding, let’s say “I want to help people as much as possible.” I still need a theory of change—help people in what way?
You could try “help as many of them avoid unnecessary death as possible”. Then we are in the scenario you describe, but we have already excluded investing in the arts based on how we have defined our goal.
There is only one best charity: the one that helps the most people the greatest amount per dollar.
If everyone gave to the “best charity” you would pass the point of diminishing returns and likely hit the point of negative returns.
Therefore, everyone seeking the “best charity” to give to is not the best approach to capital allocation.
Therefore, some people should not be following this strategy.
If a high-powered lawyer who makes $1,000 an hour chooses to take an hour off to help clean up litter on the beach, he’s wasted the opportunity to work overtime that day, make $1,000, donate to a charity that will hire a hundred poor people for $10/hour to clean up litter, and end up with a hundred times more litter removed.
This assumes it is ethically responsible to perpetuate a system where a person can earn $1000 per hour and others make $10 per hour, and that being a high-powered lawyer is otherwise morally neutral.
This is not a valid argument. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise unless you assume that “help people” means “help people as much as possible”. But it doesn’t.
Nothwithstanding, let’s say “I want to help people as much as possible.” I still need a theory of change—help people in what way?
You could try “help as many of them avoid unnecessary death as possible”. Then we are in the scenario you describe, but we have already excluded investing in the arts based on how we have defined our goal.
If everyone gave to the “best charity” you would pass the point of diminishing returns and likely hit the point of negative returns.
Therefore, everyone seeking the “best charity” to give to is not the best approach to capital allocation.
Therefore, some people should not be following this strategy.
This assumes it is ethically responsible to perpetuate a system where a person can earn $1000 per hour and others make $10 per hour, and that being a high-powered lawyer is otherwise morally neutral.