The argument that you should help locally instead (even if the people making that argument don’t do so) is easily made without sounding like a bad person.
Yes, but I think there’s a difference at work here:
You should spend your charitable dollars on some other cause instead is pretty much a socially acceptable criticism, no matter what the charitable cause under discussion.
You’re just lighting your money on fire is socially acceptable for some causes but not others; I would think it is rather hard to pull off for global health work (but not for at least some of animal welfare) in most polite company.
Finally, there’s your work is actually causing net harm and is worse than lighting money on fire. One could potentially pull that off for animal welfare in polite company, although it would probably be a stretch for most animals. E.g., if animal welfare doesn’t matter at all, AW efforts may cost jobs, raise prices (disproportionately on the poor), and sometimes have negative environmental effects (e.g., beef vs. chicken as an environment-welfare tradeoff).
Yes, but I think there’s a difference at work here:
You should spend your charitable dollars on some other cause instead is pretty much a socially acceptable criticism, no matter what the charitable cause under discussion.
You’re just lighting your money on fire is socially acceptable for some causes but not others; I would think it is rather hard to pull off for global health work (but not for at least some of animal welfare) in most polite company.
Finally, there’s your work is actually causing net harm and is worse than lighting money on fire. One could potentially pull that off for animal welfare in polite company, although it would probably be a stretch for most animals. E.g., if animal welfare doesn’t matter at all, AW efforts may cost jobs, raise prices (disproportionately on the poor), and sometimes have negative environmental effects (e.g., beef vs. chicken as an environment-welfare tradeoff).