Should we not have at least some good evidence that the world has been measurably changed by charitable actions before positing this?
By that logic, wouldn’t we need good evidence that it hasn’t been measurably changed before refraining from posting?
In any case, Give Well looks into a lot of charities. There’s many where the difference is quite obvious.
Can we also establish that the making of as much money as possible does not itself have costs and do damage?
It makes some difference what you do, but it’s not the same order of magnitude. You don’t have to kill someone to earn a thousand dollars. You don’t have to blind someone for $25.
To give my own answer, I think the single best contribution that a person can make to society is to raise a child (genetically related or adopted) educated in the sciences and in reason, and with mind strong and nimble and ready to apply this knowledge in any field she finds to be interesting.
I don’t know of a specific charity that does the same thing but better, which would be an ideal counterargument. That said, raising a child can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is it worth hundreds of lives? Thousands of peoples’ sight?
Also, it seems to be based on the idea that what you do is more important that what charity you donate to. It seems like it would be better to raise them to donate large amounts of money to charity. Or to try to convince people you know to donate.
In any case, Give Well looks into a lot of charities. There’s many where the difference is quite obvious.
I don’t know of a specific charity that does the same thing but better, which would be an ideal counterargument. That said, raising a child can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is it worth hundreds of lives? Thousands of peoples’ sight?
Also, it seems to be based on the idea that what you do is more important that what charity you donate to. It seems like it would be better to raise them to donate large amounts of money to charity. Or to try to convince people you know to donate.