If I understood your post correctly, this resolves the paradox:
if you invest the money, you get a return (say of r1%)
if you donate, this is also an investment, which may get a return of (say) r2%
So the give now / give later problem is more or less about estimating which is better out of r1 and r2.
I think of donating as also being an investment because money donated now may (or may not) have an immediate effect, but there should also be knock-on positive impacts trickling on into the future. I.e.
an investment is make-payment-now-and-get-a-series-of-(uncertain)-future-cash-flows
a philanthropic “investment” is make-payment-now-and-get-a-series-of-(uncertain)-future-hedon-flows
If this doesn’t resolve paradox, it may be that I have misunderstood the post
If I understood your post correctly, this resolves the paradox:
if you invest the money, you get a return (say of r1%)
if you donate, this is also an investment, which may get a return of (say) r2%
So the give now / give later problem is more or less about estimating which is better out of r1 and r2.
I think of donating as also being an investment because money donated now may (or may not) have an immediate effect, but there should also be knock-on positive impacts trickling on into the future. I.e.
an investment is make-payment-now-and-get-a-series-of-(uncertain)-future-cash-flows
a philanthropic “investment” is make-payment-now-and-get-a-series-of-(uncertain)-future-hedon-flows
If this doesn’t resolve paradox, it may be that I have misunderstood the post
Have just looked through the comments, and I think Ben Todd’s post may be expressing a similar idea to mine