I read your link and I agree with you, it is not a very nice story but to me it only stresses the need to be selective in which organisations to give to.

@Cedric,

The fact that how a situation makes us feel, impacts our judgement of that situation does not justify our closing our eyes for things we may not feel but still know about. What this means is that instead of chosing who and why you will help,you want to be manipulated by anyone who can create a certain feeling in you.

And yes you are right: it is very hard to ‘proof’ what sort of moral obligation derives from knowing something. But his applies as much to the drowning next door child as the dying far away child

News like these aren’t exactly encouraging either: http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/WFP;art1117,2930582

I really have to disagree there: the way an event enters our mind affects the way our capacity to judge interpretates the particular event. The fact that it FEELS differently is essential because this determines how we judge the situation.

But maybe you can explain more what you mean with the “point of view that we ought to help”, I mean, knowing something bad happens doesn’t imply a moral obligation to do something about it.

To me both in the case of the drowning child or in the case of the somewhere else dying of hunger child the core of the situation is the same: a child is dying that maybe does not have to. The fact that it FEELS differentl because one is so close and the other one is far away does not make it different from the point of view that we ought to help. The other questions you asked (how do I know my money really reaches the needy) is again more a matter of selecting the right charity to give to then a question of should I give at all.

The comparison you make is rather over the top. There is a fundamental difference between the kid that I see drowning and the kid with a big belly the tv shows me. The drowning child I see, hear, experience directly, meaning it appeals directly to my capacity of compassion. The child I see drowning is in acute need: if I don’t do anything now it will die.
The kid on tv I experience on a more abstract level. If I spend 100€ for the kid on tv, how am I to know whether my money will ever help this particular child? Maybe it takes a month or two for my money to be transformed into bread and delivered to this child, only to be placed upon its grave…

Actually, when I help the drowning child, is it really an act of charity?

I don’t exactly know why I don’t donate to charity. I don’t even feel bad about not giving anything. Why? I don’t know…

I am not sure if you used the calculator correctly because if your hourly rate is as high as you suggest, you should pay at least 5% !

@ Good German

I must admit that that 8-10% also seems a bit high to me. The question how far to go is also an interesting question and as such I was planning to write another post about that at a later date (man has gotta work as well you know), but at this stage how far to go seems less important because one thing is for sure…. we need to go farther than we are going now.

I know these things differ from location to location but here (in the Netherlands) I am pretty sure that there are very few people who give 8-10% of their income. And what I know about the US for example is that people do give a lot but by far the most of that money is going to either their local church or their university. Which is fine of course but that doesnt help the real poor people of the world.

The bigger question is “Where do you draw the line?” or “How much is enough?”