Spending time and effort on efficient charity in order to feel good about yourself doesn’t make you feel any more good than not spending time on it, but it does cost you more money. The correct reason to spend most of your meager and hard-earned cash on efficient charity is because you already want to do good. But that is not an extra reason.
Look, I think Multifolaterose made one good point that you either missed or for some reason chose not to address:
Increasing the amount you donate to efficient charity by one order of magnitude can radically improve your self-esteem, productivity, and mental integrity in ways that you would not have expected based merely on your desire to do good.
In other words, if you calculate U(charity) = U(status) + U(doing good), you will seriously underestimate U(charity). You must also include a term for charity’s surprising effect on your psyche; U(charity) = U(status) + U(doing good) + U(being good).
Yes you can do well whilst doing some good, but the point is that it is a trade-off. Yes, I agree that there are points on this trade-off that are better than either extrema for a given utility function.
OK, but you shouldn’t be quite so cavalier about it. If the actual equilibrium point involves 5x or 10x current donation levels, and rational thinking can help people move toward that equilibrium point, then there’s this huge opportunity for us to help people help both themselves and others by explaining to them why charity is awesome-r than they thought. The way you phrase your disclaimer seems to suggest that the trade-off will inevitably break down differently for different people to the point where we shouldn’t worry about it.
Well, your mileage may vary. But here’s Multifolaterose’s report on self-esteem before:
Though I hate myself for it, apparently I care a lot more about myself than I care about other people. I’m just not a good enough person to do what I should do. I’m happier when I don’t think about it than when I do, and I do the wrong thing regardless, so I try not to think about it too much. But I know in my heart-of-hearts that the way I’m leading my life is very wrong.
and after:
What effect did donating have on me? Well, since correlation is not causation, one can’t be totally sure. But my subjective impression is that it substantially increased my confidence in my ability to act in accordance with my values, which had a runaway effect resulting in me behaving in progressively greater accord with my values; raising my life satisfaction considerably. The vague sense of guilt that I once felt has vanished. The chronic mild depression that I’d experienced for most of my life is gone. I feel like a complete and well integrated human being. I’m happier than I’ve been in eight years. I could not have done better for myself by spending the $1500 in any other way.
To see why multifolaterose thinks it might happen to you, read the article, especially reason (C) for why happiness correlates only weakly with disposable income and the quotes from Singer’s book.
Hope that helps.
Also, at the risk of being preachy or presumptuous, Multifolaterose doesn’t predict that you’ll get any significant character gains from throwing a few bucks around here and there—you would have to give in an amount that begins to reflect your values. Spending 1% of your income on charity, e.g., suggests that you value yourself 100 times more than a stranger, which may not do much for your self-esteem.
I don’t see why. You’re still donating the money and you’re still helping people. And doing it to increase your utility just shows you’re the kind of person who feels better for donating money, which is a good thing.
Look, I think Multifolaterose made one good point that you either missed or for some reason chose not to address:
Increasing the amount you donate to efficient charity by one order of magnitude can radically improve your self-esteem, productivity, and mental integrity in ways that you would not have expected based merely on your desire to do good.
In other words, if you calculate U(charity) = U(status) + U(doing good), you will seriously underestimate U(charity). You must also include a term for charity’s surprising effect on your psyche; U(charity) = U(status) + U(doing good) + U(being good).
OK, but you shouldn’t be quite so cavalier about it. If the actual equilibrium point involves 5x or 10x current donation levels, and rational thinking can help people move toward that equilibrium point, then there’s this huge opportunity for us to help people help both themselves and others by explaining to them why charity is awesome-r than they thought. The way you phrase your disclaimer seems to suggest that the trade-off will inevitably break down differently for different people to the point where we shouldn’t worry about it.
Can you say more about how to realize these benefits? I haven’t noticed what I’ve given to have any real effect on my character or well-being...
Well, your mileage may vary. But here’s Multifolaterose’s report on self-esteem before:
and after:
To see why multifolaterose thinks it might happen to you, read the article, especially reason (C) for why happiness correlates only weakly with disposable income and the quotes from Singer’s book.
Hope that helps.
Also, at the risk of being preachy or presumptuous, Multifolaterose doesn’t predict that you’ll get any significant character gains from throwing a few bucks around here and there—you would have to give in an amount that begins to reflect your values. Spending 1% of your income on charity, e.g., suggests that you value yourself 100 times more than a stranger, which may not do much for your self-esteem.
But if you know that you’re doing charity in order to increase your U(charity), then it’s not charity, and it doesn’t work.
I don’t see why. You’re still donating the money and you’re still helping people. And doing it to increase your utility just shows you’re the kind of person who feels better for donating money, which is a good thing.