Another example of weird charitable impulses—people contributed a lot (possibly between $700,000 and a million dollars) to a fund for Baby Jessica—a two year old who’d been trapped in a well for 2 1⁄2 days.
There were medical consequences, but the money wasn’t used for them. It was put into a fund that she won’t get until she’s 25.
A more practical and simple (and possibly legal) idea for abusing knowledge of irrational charity: Instead of asking for money to save countless children, ask for money to save one, specific child.
If one circulated a message on the internet saying that donations could save the life of a specific child, obviously if you then used the money for something unrelated there would be laws against that. But if you simply, say, A: lied about why they were in danger of dying, B: overstated the amount of money needed, C: left out the nationality of the child, and D: Used the money to save a large number of children, do you think a court would convict that?
Getting the money towards some cause where the child-saving is a lot less direct, like technological research or SIAI, would probably get hit for lying, but for something like fighting Malaria or the like that might be incredibly useful.
If one circulated a message on the internet saying that donations could save the life of a specific child, obviously if you then used the money for something unrelated there would be laws against that. But if you simply, say, A: lied about why they were in danger of dying, B: overstated the amount of money needed, C: left out the nationality of the child, and D: Used the money to save a large number of children, do you think a court would convict that?
You have just rediscovered the idea, “I know, why not just lie!” On which, see this.
I predict that (a) you would be found out, (b) if it came to court, the court would convict (fraud in a good cause is still fraud), and (c) so would the forum of public opinion.
Another example of weird charitable impulses—people contributed a lot (possibly between $700,000 and a million dollars) to a fund for Baby Jessica—a two year old who’d been trapped in a well for 2 1⁄2 days.
There were medical consequences, but the money wasn’t used for them. It was put into a fund that she won’t get until she’s 25.
Damn, does SIAI have any kids they can push down a well?
… I can never run for public office.
If SIAI’s funding soars in 3 years time, you’ll know why!
A more practical and simple (and possibly legal) idea for abusing knowledge of irrational charity: Instead of asking for money to save countless children, ask for money to save one, specific child.
If one circulated a message on the internet saying that donations could save the life of a specific child, obviously if you then used the money for something unrelated there would be laws against that. But if you simply, say, A: lied about why they were in danger of dying, B: overstated the amount of money needed, C: left out the nationality of the child, and D: Used the money to save a large number of children, do you think a court would convict that?
Getting the money towards some cause where the child-saving is a lot less direct, like technological research or SIAI, would probably get hit for lying, but for something like fighting Malaria or the like that might be incredibly useful.
You have just rediscovered the idea, “I know, why not just lie!” On which, see this.
I predict that (a) you would be found out, (b) if it came to court, the court would convict (fraud in a good cause is still fraud), and (c) so would the forum of public opinion.
ETA: See also.