As a high-decoupler, I think it's only reasonable to extend the thought experiment to *taking* money and donating it to an effective charity. Also some transaction that involves complex numbers.
But seriously, when I think about these sorts of things I also factor in the pragmatic effect on propensity to donate anything. It's not exactly in the ethical realm that you're trying to write about, but I figure that (given that a donor's post-donation feelings will impact future donation amounts) trying to establish one right answer will leave a significant fraction of people feeling blocked from whichever option (tangible or abstract) would feel emotionally sustainable to them.
Yeah, this seems right to me too, but I'm not sure how to think about that when it comes to someone who donates to a charity that I think is ineffective. If someone tells me they give £X to some local British charity that I don't think is particularly effective, it's always tempting to tell them about effective charities, but it's tricky to do without sounding like you're denigrating their choice of charity.
I don't think the thought experiment caveat about beggars never spending money on alcohol or drugs is reasonable. Warm food and shelter are available for free, for rough sleepers in any city in the UK. Most beggars are doing so specifically to feed a drug habit, and 80-90% of beggars are not homeless to begin with.
Often, when I offer to give money to someone begging, they ask if I can go into a supermarket and buy them food instead. If you prefer, you can substitute this act into the thought experiment - so it's buying a homeless person a sandwich instead of giving them money. But again, I really didn't want to get into this debate, hence the caveat.
As a high-decoupler, I think it's only reasonable to extend the thought experiment to *taking* money and donating it to an effective charity. Also some transaction that involves complex numbers.
But seriously, when I think about these sorts of things I also factor in the pragmatic effect on propensity to donate anything. It's not exactly in the ethical realm that you're trying to write about, but I figure that (given that a donor's post-donation feelings will impact future donation amounts) trying to establish one right answer will leave a significant fraction of people feeling blocked from whichever option (tangible or abstract) would feel emotionally sustainable to them.
Yeah, this seems right to me too, but I'm not sure how to think about that when it comes to someone who donates to a charity that I think is ineffective. If someone tells me they give £X to some local British charity that I don't think is particularly effective, it's always tempting to tell them about effective charities, but it's tricky to do without sounding like you're denigrating their choice of charity.
I don't think the thought experiment caveat about beggars never spending money on alcohol or drugs is reasonable. Warm food and shelter are available for free, for rough sleepers in any city in the UK. Most beggars are doing so specifically to feed a drug habit, and 80-90% of beggars are not homeless to begin with.
Often, when I offer to give money to someone begging, they ask if I can go into a supermarket and buy them food instead. If you prefer, you can substitute this act into the thought experiment - so it's buying a homeless person a sandwich instead of giving them money. But again, I really didn't want to get into this debate, hence the caveat.