Throughout the first month and a half of our class,
something has struck me more than anything else, how fiscally responsible
this class has been. When it comes to both our charity pitches and deciding the
five finalists, we have been much more cautious about not giving our money to
organizations with large budgets than I would have thought. I entered the
semester worried that this class would focus a majority of its energy on debating
the qualities and virtues of organizations we donate to instead of the greater financial
picture of donating to that charity. To clarify, I did not expect the entirety
of the arguments in class to revolve around pathos and ethos arguments instead
of logos, but I thought a majority of the points made would be in those areas.
Yet, what I have found is that I was completely wrong and
the discussion has been geared in a direction that I appreciate and happily
take part in. As someone with a mind of metal and wheels, I find it comforting
that this class has gone in the same direction. It helps me relate better to
the charity pitches and participate more meaningfully because that is how I
think.
However, I am now worried that as we begin to evaluate the
finalist organizations for our grant, we have shifted too far into the realm of
ethos and pathos and detached ourselves from the causes that we should all be
so passionate about. The five charities that we have picked all pull at the heartstrings
as a part of their appeal to donors and they clearly have appealed to us in
that way to get on the shortlist of finalists.
This is where my issue comes in: because all the finalists
clearly appealed to us on an emotional level, we will only debate them on an
intellectual level because that is where we might find disagreement. I find
fault with that because our emotional and moral background should obviously
play a role in what charities we donate to as a class. If charitable donations
have no heart behind them and are solely made based on the wholly legitimate arguments
regarding what makes financial sense, then we are no better than computers picking
charities using an algorithm.
I know a good portion of this class has been dedicated to
the utilitarian approach to giving, and that many of us, myself included, subscribe
at least partially to that theory. Clearly that is an important part of the discussion
and decision we will have to make at the end of the semester of where to donate
our money. But we cannot forget that for many people, giving comes from the
heart and from the love and compassion we all have for our fellow men and
women. I want us to bring some more soul into the room when we talk about our
finalists so we show how much we truly care about the Binghamton community.
That we care not just with our wallets, but with our hearts.
Eli,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed how thoughtful this blog post was. I too agree that our class has been very fiscally responsible with both charity pitch donations and in regards to narrowing down and eventually choosing a finalist for the larger grants. Donating with the heart is critical to making effective philanthropic choices and I like your comparison to computers and how utilizing your emotions to aid in making charitable decisions is what makes philanthropy more personal.
This past week's reading by Peter Singer contradicts this idea of using your heart, and he argues that any philanthropic decision should be made using only one's head. He believes that making philanthropic decisions solely based on logic is the best way to do the most good (ie help the most people).
I believe that a certain level of emotional engagement is needed to really make an effective philanthropic decision because to simply use logic would mean staying detached from the giving process. I agree that giving should be done with a mix of one's head and heart. How would you rebut Singer's argument?
-Chloe
Chloe,
DeleteI think there is a lot of merit in what Singer has to say about charitable giving and the need to maximize the impact of your donation and help the most people. I would probably respond by pointing out how sometimes in the realm of philanthropic work, it is impossible to be objective on the size of the impact of a donation. It is impossible to say whether giving a large sum of money to a charity for victims of domestic violence, where the funds will be dispersed among its numerous inhabitants is more impactful than using that money to provide for all the needs of one specific family fleeing a similar situation. One provides a small amount to a large group of people while the other cares for every need of one family. Personally, I would rather give to the one family because of the personal touch of the donation as well as the stability in can provide. Sometimes a small, targeted, and heartfelt focus can do more than just the numbers that come from a broad-based focus.
Hi Eli,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate this blog post because I think that it accurately describes how the nature of our class debates has evolved over the course of the semester. I wholeheartedly agree that emotion should and needs to be an important part of our decision-making process when choosing the organizations we give grants to. Jamil Zaki's article in the New York Times really resonated with me on this topic, as he argues the importance of the human element of philanthropy. We are not computers, and humans are creatures of habit. Thus, as Zaki says, when we donate to causes and organizations that we are passionate about, we feel good about ourselves, which makes people more likely to donate again in the future. Therefore, it's important that our debates in this class work to achieve this outcome, because the best thing that could come from this class is that we will all be more active in the world of philanthropy in the future (I know I will).
I also think that emotional factors are important because our finalist organizations are all so qualified and all do incredible work in the Binghamton area. When it becomes hard to make a logical argument favoring one organization over another, our hearts must serve as the tiebreaker. Oftentimes, we are more likely to support organizations that we have a personal connection to, or ones that fight an issue we feel connected to. Even without a personal connection, many people find that certain issues pull on their heartstrings more than others. Whether that be the opioid crisis and Truth Pharm, the plight of immigrants and the American Civic Association, or another one of our options, when all else fails, sometimes its best to just go with our gut feeling.
Eli,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the introspection displayed in your blog post. I would agree with a lot of your points, however I think for myself I have shifted in the opposite way. At the beginning of the year, I believed that organizations should be primarily local as to have more of an impact, that community bonding and care trumped all. Though, as we learn more about the impact and logistic complexities behind non-profits I have come to believe more and more that we must think more with our head than our heart.
After discussing Peter Singer’s perspective on giving, I’ve become increasingly sympathetic to his strategy. His preachy nature aside, his argument simply makes sense. As someone who values logic and facts above all else, I realized I should aim to help the most people with the most need rather than focusing on my own interests. If I truly believe everyone is equal, then I should donate accordingly.
I don’t mean to say that people should eliminate all heart from donating, but if you have a few organizations that you feel passionately about then you should donate to the organization that will help people who need it most. Organization size isn’t necessarily proportional to the impact. There should definitely be a blend of head and heart, though our priority should be to aid the most people.
- Sara Baldwin
Eli,
DeleteI appreciate the sentiment of you blog post that we should vote with our hearts, but I don't think it is the most effective way to choose a charity. You mention that if we only vote with logic then we are no better than a computer using an algorithm, but why is that a bad thing? There is a lot of evidence that shows that people, even experts, are consistently worse at making decisions than machines (or sometimes just random chance). A recent Freakonomics podcast I was listening to talked about how people are worse at spotting fake news than a computer and that fact-based interview questions result in better employees than asking holistic questions. When basketball scouts use statistical models to draft players rather than relying on their guts they end up drafting better players on average (there is a whole chapter about this in The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis). The point is, people are biased in many ways and taking fact based positions consistently results in better decisions.
That doesn't mean the heart shouldn't play any role at all. There are certain decisions that a computer can't make, such as subjective decisions on what actions are better for the community. The true impact of some programs are impossible to determine and when we don't have all of the data, we need to make decisions based on our guts and values.
However, ultimately, we will make better choices if we purely base our decision on facts and data while minimizing the biases of our hearts. Voting with our heart might make us feel good, but it isn't the best way to help the community as a whole. Our passion and love isn't going to cause change, at least not directly, but effectively donating our money will. If we want to show how much we truly care about the Binghamton community, we should primarily vote with our heads.
-Adiel Feslen
(The above comment was meant to be a reply to the original post)
DeleteEli, I love this post because it made me think deeper about a question that was already rising in my head the past few classes.
ReplyDeleteI think your point on how we have detached ourselves emotionally from what we should give holds true especially to me. I've noticed myself not 100 percent detaching myself from the emotional part of the organization and why we should care about it. However, I think it is important to also be realistic when it comes to organizations which is why I think things like Charity Navigator is important because sometimes the head knows best. Although, we should definitely want to give more heart when it comes to these organizations. I think during the charity pitches we are able to see the true hearts of our classmates and what we considered to be true to ourselves and that is good because that would never change. For example: Truth Pharm was something My group and I in presentation 1 never even considered because I did not thoroughly look through it. However, after Hanna's amazing presentation it changed me. It was not charity Navigator or the criteria that we are all trying to decide which is best in assessing organization. It was the passion that came with her presentation and the lives it impacted that got me.My question is, do you have any suggestions on how we can be more emotionally involved with these organizations like we were in the beginning? and how can we not shift from being severely detached because I can definitely see parts of myself becoming like this