Moral choice - give money away or buy stuff/services instead?

[Dave2002]

The people in many countries around the world are relatively worse off than most in the UK or European countries, though even in these regions there are people who have problems.

Ignoring for the moment the notion that "money doesn't make you happy", is it better to give money away (charitable donations, or overseas aid in the case of governments), or to buy goods and services? If you see someone in the street begging, should you give him/her money, or should you go down the street and buy something in a shop?

There is an argument that the second option is better - but obviously it depends on one's own individual beliefs. Many might say that the first option is the obvious one to do. Some would say "do both", but that's not perhaps always possible.

[Richard Barrett]

Going down the street and buying something in a shop surely hardly ever results in any improvement in the lives of poor people - it's much more likely to add to the wealth of the rich.

[Dave2002]

Going down the street and buying something in a shop surely hardly ever results in any improvement in the lives of poor people - it's much more likely to add to the wealth of the rich.

Some would disagree with that. I don't know the answer - I don't have enough evidence either way. It may depend what one buys. If I buy a luxury car (I can't afford one right now ..) that may tend to benefit "the rich", but if I buy food - well that also depends .... There may be products and services which result in greater good than "merely" giving money away to one apparently poor person.

[oddoneout]

If I buy a luxury car (I can't afford one right now ..) that may tend to benefit "the rich"

No more so than buying the 'luxury' versions of foods in the supermarket. People have to be paid to produce the raw materials and assemble them into the end product regardless of who buys that end product or what it is. I think the relevant bit is what happens to the money involved in that final transaction - and isn't that where the much vaunted 'trickle down effect' falls flat on its face?
Local shops run by and serving local communities keep more of the proceeds in that community, but the wider picture is that the more shops and businesses in a given area the more funds available(in theory) to local authorities to address issues such as poverty, and that means accepting national companies which 'export' their profits out of the area.

[Dave2002]

No more so than buying the 'luxury' versions of foods in the supermarket. People have to be paid to produce the raw materials and assemble them into the end product regardless of who buys that end product or what it is. I think the relevant bit is what happens to the money involved in that final transaction - and isn't that where the much vaunted 'trickle down effect' falls flat on its face?
Local shops run by and serving local communities keep more of the proceeds in that community, but the wider picture is that the more shops and businesses in a given area the more funds available(in theory) to local authorities to address issues such as poverty, and that means accepting national companies which 'export' their profits out of the area.

So if I go to a small village with a community of shops, or even market traders, it's perhaps (more) likely that the money will go to support that local group. Another factor would be whether the shops/traders would be selling locally produced articles.

That would not necessarily support the provision of other infrastructure directly - e.g education, roads, phone networks, internet.

If the locality has been invaded by supermarkets - perhaps with investment money from outside the area, then the funds may (or may not) be extracted with relatively little proportional benefit to the community. The locals may do shelf stacking, or work on checkouts - with greater wealth going elsewhere - or not! In some cases external investment does not even lead to local employment, as the investors may import their own workers from outside the community, rather than recruit and train local workers.

This seems to suggest that it's hard to come to a definitive answer, as a lot may depend on the nature or the enterprises involved, and the philosophies of those involved in the relevant projects.

Regarding luxury items versus "regular" items, note that some companies may be distributing and selling even basic foodstuffs, yet the owners/shareholders may be getting very rich. It does not necessarily follow that there is greater transfer of wealth to the rich with the sale of luxury items or food, rather than essentials or staple food products.

I don't know enough about this to be sure.

[french frank]

is it better to give money away (charitable donations, or overseas aid in the case of governments), or to buy goods and services?

How do you define 'better'? Better in what way - for your conscience (moral choice) or in pound for pound benefit to those who are in greatest need (social choice)?

Fortunately, I enjoy frugality and don't buy luxuries (iMac and MacBook are exceptions). So I have little option but to give charitable donations.

[Dave2002]

How do you define 'better'? Better in what way - for your conscience (moral choice) or in pound for pound benefit to those who are in greatest need (social choice)?

Fortunately, I enjoy frugality and don't buy luxuries (iMac and MacBook are exceptions). So I have little option but to give charitable donations.

”Better”! You’ve spotted something there. I’ll refer back to Richard’s comment “Going down the street and buying something in a shop surely hardly ever results in any improvement in the lives of poor people - it's much more likely to add to the wealth of the rich.”

There is a hint of a suggestion that it’s a good idea to “improve” the lives of the poor - or perhaps alternatively the rich. Either might result in environmental damage, change of local ecosystems etc. Some might suggest that a human centric approach may also not be justified - which is yet another stance, while even if human “development” is to have priority over other factors and the environment, the rate of development is also of interest. Societies of poor people may survive for thousands of years, while developing societies may consume too many resources or have/create other problems and thus become unsustainable over the medium term.

[ardcarp]

Has anyone mentioned Charity Shops? There seem to be lots in most high streets (where normal shopkeepers can't afford the rent/business rates). IMV it's win/win both to give things to and buy from charity shops.

[Richard Barrett]

There is a hint of a suggestion that it’s a good idea to “improve” the lives of the poor - or perhaps alternatively the rich

Put it like this: if someone comes up to me in the street and asks for money I'm assuming he/she is in a pretty desperate situation, a rather different one say from that of the CEO of a major retailing company. It's a question of alleviating immediate suffering in some small way, not of weighing up the short/medium/long-term effect on ecosystems or whatever. Would you be capable of justifying to that person him/herself your reasons for not helping them?

[Dave2002]

I sometimes give, and sometimes do not. Sometimes there are too many people for it to be feasible to help them all, and then picking one or two would be discriminatory. In some countries there are people begging outside churches or temples.

Possibly many of us would rather not be confronted with this situation. Buying goods or services in those countries is usually a lot easier, and we may not have any moral qualms.

[Lat-Literal]

Unless I can find a way of getting money to the genuinely deserving and without anyone else taking a cut - there are two concepts there - I intend to burn whatever money I have on my death bed as a statement against the way in which trickery gets in the way. If you had asked me a year ago, I would have said I would have brought in the media for the event. Now I will do it privately. Of course, if anyone can suggest a way around the two issues I mention - fake claims and greed - then I will reconsider but society isn't structured on those lines.

I am absolutely genuine in this sentiment and intend to see it through.

Some will claim it is evil but my feeling is that, if they do, the focus of their accusation will be wrong.

It is also illegal but that will hardly matter in the last 24 hours.

[Dave2002]

Has anyone mentioned Charity Shops? There seem to be lots in most high streets (where normal shopkeepers can't afford the rent/business rates). IMV it's win/win both to give things to and buy from charity shops.

I think some of us here do buy from Charity Shops - usually pre-owned CDs or books. Do these shops get a benefit of lower business rates or rent?

However some might argue that by buying second hand items that one is not fuelling the (wasteful) economies we live in

[muzzer]

Check out The Most Good You Can Do by Peter Singer on effective altruism, it’s very interesting and helpful on this.

[MrGongGong]

Unless I can find a way of getting money to the genuinely deserving and without anyone else taking a cut - there are two concepts there - I intend to burn whatever money I have

I try not to make such moral judgements
I've been around people for many years who are on the receiving end of the adverse effects of the DWP and PIP etc and often have been told horrendous tales of folks shouting at them for having a blue badge or needing assistance.
The idea of the "deserving" vs the "undeserving" poor has come back to this country (if it ever went away) and is often a mask for some rather nasty people to grab more and more for themselves.

[Lat-Literal]

I try not to make such moral judgements
I've been around people for many years who are on the receiving end of the adverse effects of the DWP and PIP etc and often have been told horrendous tales of folks shouting at them for having a blue badge or needing assistance.
The idea of the "deserving" vs the "undeserving" poor has come back to this country (if it ever went away) and is often a mask for some rather nasty people to grab more and more for themselves.

Well, thank you for your response which is kind. If you can guarantee that your local building that does all sorts of seemingly random things, free food cafe, all night drone music festivals and space for artists to play and work has all the money that is left to it going to it and enhancing peoples' lives in a truly demonstrable way, then I would consider it.

I am not very conventional in that way - if it enhances mental health, that's a plus. More conventionally, I'm thinking about RNLI which has no Government subsidy and local tree, animal or sea things but I'm wary. Six figure salaries in any organisation is not an option - that's non-negotiable - as I implied it could be a KLF thing but without any intention of art.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqxtBggVsi0