In the end, she took the money to the office of a very nice local children’s charity and was thanked by one of the staff and had her photo taken with them. She was stoked and everyone was happy.

Because as nice as a lesson it would have been for her – flip it round and think how the children at the charity would feel having a relatively rich kid come down with a donation and expecting them to play with her. Her parents also were able to explain that the charity knew what they need to spend the money on best and gently persuaded her away from buying gifts in kind.

You shouldn’t use the poor to ‘teach’ your children lessons. Teach them about the social justice issues, teach them about researching effective charities, but not as some kind of twisted gratitude lesson.

I have such mixed feelings about articles like this because with my Non-profit Director hat on, I recognise that people donate for lots of reasons, and sentimental donations make just as much difference as practical donations. But it still worries me.

Liking your own posts is a bit tacky, though, so we can disagree about that if you want.

I do think “sharing” (in the kindergarten sense of “sharing your cookies”) is a better way of looking at charity, versus “giving” (in the adult sense of “giving a homeless man a dollar”). Specifically, I think this would be an effective way to explain to a child the moral obligation to help the less fortunate (which is ostensibly what this article is about). I used those two words in that way intentionally to make a point, not because I am confused about their definitions.

Also, I’m not sure why you’re dwelling on Bhutan – perhaps you should re-read the piece to see that it is simply used as an example of utility.

Also, I disagree that charity is not about sharing. Conceiving of charity in terms of the act of giving, and what this act does for the giver, is (in my view) solipsistic and morally bankrupt, which I think is one of the points the author was trying to make.

The kind of sharing you learn in kindergarten — if I have a lot of something, and you have none, it is right that I give you some of mine — is a much more solid foundation for a moral society.

One quibble: the accepted definition of utility is relative. Does this choice bring more benefit than its alternative would? As opposed to – this choice brings me 3 utils of satisfaction. Also, utility is also defined on individuals by their preferences. Then a measure of social utility or happiness has to find some way to aggregate over individuals. It gets complicated, as you might imagine.

As for measures of societal well-being which are not driven merely by GDP, the United Nations Development Program has a measure called the Human Development Indicator, which factors in things like environmental degradation and educational attainment. Happiness is a notoriously tricky concept, especially if you want to rely on it for poverty-reduction purposes. It is a social construct. Asking someone whether he or she is happy is received differently, depending on their upbringing, and countries tend to have very constant “average happiness levels” as well as constant range of lowest and highest happiness, regardless of their economic situations. Does that mean we should not try to increase economic opportunity and reduce poverty?

And finally, let’s get to the heart of this article here. Which charity should you give to? This is a good question! Some people might want to give to fiscally responsible charities, the ones that don’t splurge on big salaries for their CEOs or big parties. But even the most frugal charity could be doing either no good or some harm. Another way to decide is cost-effectiveness. How far will your dollar go? The organization GiveWell recommends some charities on this basis.

But the best reason to give to any charity is because its mission resonates with you, and you have been convinced that it makes some progress on that mission. I guess what I’m saying is, I think it’s totally OK to be swayed by a compelling story of a child or a picture of a panda or your aunt’s recent cancer scare. That makes us human. It also makes you feel really double extra good about having given the money.

Also, he never said Bhutan was a great nation – he was just using it as an example of how utility is used (and it’s a classic example for those who are not familiar with it).

Great piece.

I’d also like to point out that Bhutan is a monarchy with a dysfunctional economy and a spotty human rights record where 60 percent of the people are illiterate and refugees are routinely mistreated. The “GNH” was a propaganda tool for the monarchy to justify making no efforts to improve the lives of their people and basically preserve them in poverty so the whole country could be a theme park for rich tourists. (When that didn’t work out, they built a gigantic dam instead.)