In a recent chronicle in Slate about charity, Tim Harford gives a good argument against the idea that charity is a proof of altruism.

If these do-gooders really were motivated by the desire to do good, they would be doing something different. It would almost always be more effective to volunteer less, work overtime, and give more. A Dutch banker can pay for a lot of soup-kitchen chefs and servers with a couple of hours' worth of his salary, but that wouldn't provide the same feel-good buzz as ladling out stew himself, would it?

He also raises an interesting question about the diversity of beneficiaries. Is it selfish to give to a great variety of organisations (you'll enjoy pointing to 10 different charities and saying, "I gave to all those!") or, as I see it, do we seek a fair distribution of gifts among beneficiaries ?

Read more...