Executive summary: The term “charity” encompasses three distinct behaviors (public goods funding, partial philanthropy, and impartial philanthropy) that form a “conflationary alliance” where different groups benefit from using the same terminology despite having different goals and motivations.
Key points:
Public goods funding involves donors supporting services they personally use (e.g., climbing routes, concert halls), gaining tax benefits while creating broader social value.
Partial philanthropy supports in-group members or collective agencies (e.g., alumni donations, religious giving), strengthening communities and institutions.
Impartial philanthropygtermism, attempts to benefit all beings regardless of connection to donors.
The alliance between these forms creates both benefits (shared infrastructure, tax advantages) and tensions (e.g., EA criticism of local charities).
Rather than arguing for one “true” meaning of charity, the author recommends treating these as distinct but complementary behaviors funded from separate mental “buckets.”
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The term “charity” encompasses three distinct behaviors (public goods funding, partial philanthropy, and impartial philanthropy) that form a “conflationary alliance” where different groups benefit from using the same terminology despite having different goals and motivations.
Key points:
Public goods funding involves donors supporting services they personally use (e.g., climbing routes, concert halls), gaining tax benefits while creating broader social value.
Partial philanthropy supports in-group members or collective agencies (e.g., alumni donations, religious giving), strengthening communities and institutions.
Impartial philanthropygtermism, attempts to benefit all beings regardless of connection to donors.
The alliance between these forms creates both benefits (shared infrastructure, tax advantages) and tensions (e.g., EA criticism of local charities).
Rather than arguing for one “true” meaning of charity, the author recommends treating these as distinct but complementary behaviors funded from separate mental “buckets.”
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.