October 15, 2006
Charity as selfishness
Slate has a piece that suggests that charitable giving, at least as it actually works most of the time, has very little to do with altruism and quite a lot to do with making ourselves feel better.
Sounds about right.
Money quote:
"Using controlled trials to compare different methods of door-to-door fund-raising, professor List's team discovered that it was much more effective to raise funds by selling lottery tickets than it was to raise funds by asking for money. This hardly suggests a world populated by altruists seeking to do the maximum good with their charitable cash.
More effective still was simply to make sure that the fund-raisers were attractive white girls rather than a dowdier assortment of males and females representing all shapes, races, and sizes. This dramatically increased the average contribution, because many more men decided to give money. Altruism?
Two things to say here. First, the article talks about philanthropy and charity as if they were the same thing. But most of the time, "philanthropy" is limited by usage to very large gifts, the kind that only a Carnegie, Ford, Gates, or Buffett can afford. would argue that this differs in kind, not in degree, from the kind of giving that you and I engage in on a regular basis. When someone is giving that kind of money away, they can actually look at solving problems in toto, assuming the problem is capable of being solved. Furthermore, they can found institutions, not merely contribute to them. And when someone is giving $40 billion away, it's hard to say that it's just to make the giver feel better. When the absolute number gets high enough, it's a sacrifice, no matter who is giving it.
Second, the thesis of the article is not entirely contrary to Scripture's view of charity. We do not give of our resources because God needs us to or because we believe that the monies we give will change the world, but because it's good for us to give. That's the reason God gives us commandments, because they bring us closer to him, not because obeying them will usher in the kingdom.
Those things being said, I do think the author is right in that if we really want to be serious about or giving, we should pick a very limited number of beneficiaries. Giving $5 here and $10 there all the time isn't good for anyone, because no only does the charity in question get only marginal benefit out of the gift, but giving at that level isn't any kind of sacrifice. If you know you're going to give $50 away, give it all to one cause. That will drive home the impact of giving far more than dollars and cents will.
I don't think charity is in any way selfish. By definition it can't be. An act is selfish only when a person acts in his own self interest at the direct expense of another person. Merely acting in one's own self interest is not selfishness. Harford seems to be confusing selfishness with self interest. I would challenge him (and anybody for that matter) to present as an example a single act in which a person is not acting in his own self interest (given the definition that self interest is the performing of one's most highly valued opportunity). Even if I push an elderly woman out of the path of an oncoming bus, and I am killed as a result, my action is still one of self interest insomuch as in that instant, my most highly valued opportunity was to assist the old woman.
On the other hand, however, it is entirely possible to not act in a selfish manner. By definition, charity cannot be selfish, because any action that harms another person can never be said to be charitable.
The problem with Harford's use of the concept of selfishness is that there is no way to distinguish between an act in which a person acts in his own self interest but does not harm another person, and an act in which a person acts in his own self interest and harms another person. Using Harford's definition, we are forced to classify both acts as being the same.
Posted by: Ben at October 16, 2006 12:16 PMThat has got to be one of the most attenuated definitions of "self-interest" that I've ever seen. I'd object to your definition and posit that the person doing the valuation is going to have a lot to say about that. Self-interest is doing what I value most, not what someone else thinks I should value most.
Your argument is essentially semantic, and doesn't touch the thesis of the article: people seem to be far less concerned with the effects of their giving in the world than with the effects of their giving on their own feelings and self-evaluation. Quibble with the terminology if you want, but that isn't going to change the net result.
Posted by: ryan at October 16, 2006 12:27 PM