My interests are in areas where a statutory solution is infeasible.
I’m a Trustee at Action for Child Trauma International. We work on training people to deliver PTSD treatment to children after conflict. When there is a large number of children with PTSD, it often means that the state has collapsed or is not functioning.
I’m also the Product Lead at Samaritans. This is a suicide reduction charity in the UK & Ireland that provides 24⁄7 emotional support. When people are suicidal, it may be difficult or impossible to disclose this to friends, family or statutory services that may have obligations to act in ways the individual knows will be counter to their interests.
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.