Posts tagged ‘Effective Altruism’

January 12, 2016

Here are Some Items You Do Not Want to Miss

If you’re at all like me, 2015 was a busy year for you. 2016 is likely to be more of the same. We work to meet workplace goals. We strive to properly balance our professional and personal lives. And we endeavor to broaden our professional knowledge. Unfortunately, with all of the demands placed on us and with the wealth of material available in the marketplace, it’s easy to overlook useful and interesting information.

So, I thought I’d share some highlights from 2015 with you and give you a chance to pick up some information you might have missed and that you may find interesting and/or helpful.

Here is a list of my top ten most read posts during the past year:

  1. Can a Nonprofit Return a Donor’s Gift?
  2. Can You Spot a Child Molester? Discover the Warning Signs
  3. Special Report: Top 40 Most Effective Fundraising Consultants IdentifiedTop 10 by Sam Churchill via Flickr
  4. The Greatest Idea for Retaining and Upgrading Donors
  5. 5 Things Never to Do in Your Phone Fundraising Calls
  6. 3 Mistakes You Make When You Meet Prospects
  7. Where Should You Avoid Meeting with Prospects and Donors?
  8. Breaking News: Big Planned Giving Myth Busted!
  9. 5 Fundraising Tips Inspired by Taylor Swift
  10. Discover 5 of the Latest Trends Affecting Your Fundraising

I invite you to read any posts that might interest you by clicking on the title above. If you’ve read them all, thank you for being a committed reader.

In addition to sharing my thoughts right here on my blog, 2015 also gave me the opportunity to talk about philanthropy with the mainstream media. For example, I appeared on the PBS television program “Religion and Ethics Newsweekly” to discuss the Effective Altruism philosophy. You can see the video and read my additional comments in my post:

Is There Just One Correct Way to Engage in Philanthropy?

My comments about Effective Altruism were also picked up by several Gannett newspapers including USA Today:

Expert Sparks Heated Debate Over What’s a “Worthy” Charity

I also had fun as Steven Shattuck’s guest on Bloomerang TV. Steven and I had a lively discussion about simple, effective ways to cultivate donors and raise more money. You can read about this and see the video by going to this post:

Easy Ways to Cultivate Your Donors and Raise More Money

In 2015, I was honored to be included on three lists of must-read fundraising and nonprofit management blog sites. In case you missed the announcements, and to help you find other valuable resources, here are the relevant posts:

There’s something else you might have missed. I shared a list of some of my favorite LinkedIn Discussion Groups:

What are Your Favorite LinkedIn Discussion Groups?

In addition to my listing of favorite LinkedIn Discussion Groups, I also announced that I created a new Group: Blog Posts for Fundraising Pros & Nonprofit Managers.

read more »

December 16, 2015

Is There Just One Correct Way to Engage in #Philanthropy?

Peter Singer, a philosophy professor at Princeton University, seems to think there is just one correct way to engage in philanthropy. Not surprisingly, it’s his way, which he calls “Effective Altruism.”

While I agree with some of the elements of Effective Altruism, there are a number of points with which I disagree. Recently, both Singer and I had a chance to air some of our views on the national PBS program Religion and Ethics Newsweekly:

At the risk of providing you with a simplistic overview of Effective Altruism, here are some of its key elements and my concerns with them:

Donors should not make emotional decisions about philanthropy. They should devote serious thought and analysis when making giving decisions.

I agree that donors should make informed decisions, examine the efficiency and track record of charities, and understand how their gifts will be used. If more donors spent more time researching the charities they give to, there would likely be fewer fraudulent charities.

However, while donors should engage in more thoughtful, analytical giving — and many do — we should not ignore basic human nature and the findings of neuroscience research. It’s unreasonable to suggest philanthropic giving should be a solely intellectual exercise. The fact is that emotions are involved in almost every decision we humans make. This means, we need to give with both our heads and our hearts.

Individuals should seek to earn as much money as they can so they can donate more money than they otherwise could.

On the surface, this seems like a reasonable, worthwhile suggestion. However, in practice, this could create cultural and economic problems. For example, if everyone followed this advice, it could lead many charities to become understaffed, staffed with incompetent people, or having to take funds away from mission fulfillment in order to pay competitively much higher salaries.

Our society doesn’t just need lawyers and Wall Street traders, we need a diverse labor force, and we need people who will actually do good in addition to funding good.

Getting people to donate more does not just involve getting them to earn more. On average, Americans donate approximately two percent of personal income to charities. Without earning more, donors could certainly give more than the two percent average without having to make a serious sacrifice. The key is to inspire donors to want to do so. That’s where we get back to appealing to both hearts and minds.

Donors should give where it will do the most good.

Everyone who donates or volunteers their time wants to support effective organizations. But, how does Singer define “Effective”? It turns out he doesn’t just mean efficient and impactful. For Singer, effective is essentially synonymous with life-saving. Singer demonstrates this at The Life You Can Save, a website he founded, where all of the recommended charities focus on saving lives.

While saving lives is certainly noble, Singer doesn’t simply advocate for such charities. He ridicules donors who support charities that are not engaged in life-saving activities. Among his favorite targets are donors to the Make-a-Wish Foundation. He implies that people who donate to Make-a-Wish are guilty of murder since they do not, instead, give to a charity that buys mosquito nets to prevent malaria. You can read my analysis of a Singer anti-Make-a-Wish column here.

Actually, Singer himself is not always in favor of saving lives. For example, he has supported infanticide, what he calls “after-birth abortion.” Under certain circumstances, defined by Singer, he believes it is perfectly acceptable to murder babies. In Practical Ethics, he wrote:

read more »

%d bloggers like this: