Insofar as liberalism is a standard starting assumption for our discourse, I think philanthropy critics have failed to argue why philanthropic decisions deserve greater scrutiny than other private decisions of similar magnitude, such as how much money to spend on various personal goods.
Personal spending has a natural cap that philanthropic spending doesn’t have.
Larry Ellison can spend $200 million on a giant yacht – I think that’s approaching the limit of what an individual can spend on themselves while still getting utility from their purchases.
But there’s no limit to how much someone can spend philanthropically (i.e. no diminishing utility from philanthropic spending). It’d be absurd to buy multiple yachts, but it wouldn’t be absurd to double your donations, even if you’re already donating a lot. (And from signaling effects, you probably get more personal utility from donating rather than buying a second yacht.)
Because its utility isn’t limited, philanthropic spending has the potential to have a much greater impact on society than personal spending. Potential for greater impact implies greater scrutiny.
Personal spending has a natural cap that philanthropic spending doesn’t have.
Larry Ellison can spend $200 million on a giant yacht – I think that’s approaching the limit of what an individual can spend on themselves while still getting utility from their purchases.
But there’s no limit to how much someone can spend philanthropically (i.e. no diminishing utility from philanthropic spending). It’d be absurd to buy multiple yachts, but it wouldn’t be absurd to double your donations, even if you’re already donating a lot. (And from signaling effects, you probably get more personal utility from donating rather than buying a second yacht.)
Because its utility isn’t limited, philanthropic spending has the potential to have a much greater impact on society than personal spending. Potential for greater impact implies greater scrutiny.
Good point!