Sysice comments on What's the right way to think about how much to give to charity? - Less Wrong

10 Post author: irrational 24 September 2014 09:42PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (72)
Tags: charity

Comments (72)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Sysice 24 September 2014 11:40:35PM *  8 points [-]

Giving What We Can recommends over 10% of income. I currently donate what I can spare when I don't need the money, and have precommitted to 50% of my post-tax income in the event that I acquire a job that pays over $30,000 a year (read: once I graduate college). The problem with that is that you already have a steady income and have arranged your life around it- it's much easier to not raise expenses in response to income than it is to lower expenses from a set income.

Like EStokes said, however, the important thing isn't to get caught up in how much you should be donating in order to meet some moral requirement. It's to actually give in a way that you, yourself, can give. We all do what we can :)

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 25 September 2014 10:54:31AM 2 points [-]

Its good to give factual numerical values. But I looked up GWWCs explanation for the suspiciously round number of 10% and it is:

Why 10%?

We chose 10% because it strikes a good balance. It is a significant proportion of one's income, in recognition of the importance of the problem and the need to take real action. But it is also within reach of most people in the developed world.

There is also a strong historical connection to the idea of tithing, a tradition in Judaism and Christianity of giving 10% of your income to charity or the Church. Islam has a similar practice (zakat) in which those who are able give between 2.5 and 20% to the poor and needy.

The pledge is of course just a minimum. Some members decide to go further than this and pledge to give a higher percentage, such as 20% or even 50%.

So this 10% appears to be arbitrary from the point of view of the OPs question. There seems to be no ethical reasoning behind the 10%. At least it looks more like charity-optimization. This may sound harsh, but this is what it looks in this light.

Comment author: ESRogs 25 September 2014 06:10:16PM 5 points [-]

At least it looks more like charity-optimization. This may sound harsh, but this is what it looks in this light.

Could you explain what you mean by charity-optimization? I'm confused why you characterize labeling something as charity-optimization as sounding harsh.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit