On a very modest donation of, say, $200 per year, the difference amounts to between ~3
and ~500 years of suffering. It doesn’t seem that the fact that “you find it painful to
pick only one” charity is, in itself, a good reason to pick both
If I’m giving $200/year there are lots of options I could take to improve my impact:
I could spend less on myself so I can give more.
I could earn more so I could give more.
I could put more time into choosing the most effective charity.
I could limit my donations to only my top charity, even when I think other charities are almost as good.
All of these are painful to myself but have benefits to others, so to maximize
my positive impact I should prioritize them based on the ratio of self-pain to other-beneft.
What I’m claiming here is that the last option has a poor ratio, for charities that are
close enough together in impact.
If I’m giving $200/year there are lots of options I could take to improve my impact:
I could spend less on myself so I can give more.
I could earn more so I could give more.
I could put more time into choosing the most effective charity.
I could limit my donations to only my top charity, even when I think other charities are almost as good.
All of these are painful to myself but have benefits to others, so to maximize my positive impact I should prioritize them based on the ratio of self-pain to other-beneft. What I’m claiming here is that the last option has a poor ratio, for charities that are close enough together in impact.