Charities and the most good (part 2)
There are also limitations with a pure emotional altruistic approach behind the veil of ignorance. Cultural biases and an uneven distribution of empathies exist: there are more benefactors in richer states; they would have a bias to support people based on personal connection, as they would have more similar experiences within their community than with people outside of their community. This would lead to an unjust distribution system, as it is safe to assume that people suffering in richer states would receive more help than those suffering in poorer states, given that fewer people would donate to poorer states and people suffering in poorer states are more numerous. A pure emotional approach would not maximize the amount of good, nor would it be just; a better approach that combines the empathy from emotional altruism while maximizing good and fairness must be found. What is needed, then, is a system that is able to incorporate empathy in donations, fairness and maximizing good. As a result, this essay proposes the following solution: each person should allocate half of their financial capital to a charity that supports a cause that they have empathy for in order to maintain their motivation for charity. The charity should find the most cost-effective way to reduce a person’s suffering within their cause, as the charity can serve more people, which creates the ‘most goo d’ for the aided. The other half of their financial capital should be allocated to a global charity aid fund, which redistributes the funds to all charities fairly. In an ideal world, if the majority of benefactors do this, it would create a large pool of capital that can be given to all types of charities alike with a transparent oversight. The fund would distribute more money to charities that fewer people support directly, while giving less money to charities that a lot of people support already. This balances the opportunities for each charity to support their respective causes. This would mitigate the injustice of a pure effective altruistic approach as every charity will have enough money to support their cause. It would maximize the efficiency within each charity by scale, as the amount of good per dollar would increase with economies of scale. Similarly, this mitigates the inherent biases in a pure emotional altruistic approach, as people in poorer countries will also receive sufficient support from charities. What is the outcome for the aided with this system? All sufferers will now be able to access some sort of help when charities are funded fairly. While the good is not maximized to its fullest potential, it is better to trade off a slight amount of ‘good’ for a just system, as justice is the more important principle than the utilitarian approach, which often sacrifices fairness. Most, if not all, sufferers would prefer the certainty of help. This creates the ‘most good’ for the aided as it is just, and every one gets some help. What is the outcome for the charities? Each charity is able to gain funds to support their cause. It is safe to assume that they can maximize their economies of scale when supporting the cause, as the more funds available, the more scalable their actions are. This makes both the benefactors and the aided more satisfied and happy: the benefactors are satisfied that the charity is using their capital wisely; the aided are happy as they can receive sufficient help. What is the outcome for the benefactors? The benefactors can justify themselves on two levels: they can morally justify their actions through a utilitarian approach; they can also justify their actions by empathy. They are then able to maintain a level of motivation which allows them to create a greater long-term good, as they are willing to give continuously. This in turn benefits those aided as more help is available. This creates the ‘most good’ for the benefactors as they are satisfied and happy.
243
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker