I must say that, in fact, much of the nonprofit sector fits incredibly better into
Prof. Hanson’s view of charity as “wasteful signaling” than into the traditional
view of charity as helping.
Charity is largely about signalling. Often, signalling has to be expensive to be credible. The “traditional view of charity” seems like naive stupidity. That is not necessarily something to lament. It is great that people want to signal their goodness, wealth, and other virtues via making the world a better place! Surely it is best if everyone involved understands what is going on in this area—rather than living in denial of human nature.
I would argue that charity is just plain good, and you don’t need to take something simple and kind and turn it into an inconclusive exercise in societal interpretation.
Charity is largely about signalling. Often, signalling has to be expensive to be credible. The “traditional view of charity” seems like naive stupidity. That is not necessarily something to lament. It is great that people want to signal their goodness, wealth, and other virtues via making the world a better place! Surely it is best if everyone involved understands what is going on in this area—rather than living in denial of human nature.
I would argue that charity is just plain good, and you don’t need to take something simple and kind and turn it into an inconclusive exercise in societal interpretation.
Are you familiar with the Hansonian view of signaling?