Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
- Posts: 5625
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
- Location: UK
I felt that the effect of lots of tiny payments was not noticeable to me, and that therefore I was probably less likely to keep on paying if I hit financial hard times myself. Whereas if I choose a single identifiable individual to help (via a charity) and direct all my limited financial resources to him/her then the fact that it's more emotionally rewarding for me will make me more likely to stick at it through the hard times. This will then help my chosen beneficiary.
So I cancelled all other payments (sorry guys) and started sponsoring a single, identified-by-name child in a poor African country. I'm still doing it, despite some financial difficulties.
If this kind of slightly cold rationalization, and open admission of the selfish reasons for donating to charities, helps us to keep paying, is it a good thing?