Giving monthly to charities.

[Spandexpanda]

We all know them: the advertisements on the TV and radio, asking us to donate a sum of money to help a certain group, and the frequency of these advertisements only increases as we near the holiday season. From cancer to cat shelters, the range of organisations we can donate to increases every year. It is not unusual to see a string of these ads, one after the other, in one break. But let me ask you this: who are the people that donate £3 a month to help abandoned animals? After having seen the ads for Oxfam, Cancer Research UK, Great Ormond St. Hospital for children, and many others besides, in which they ask for money to help people in need, why do people choose to donate their money to help animals?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a hater of animals, I don't condone violence against animals, and obviously some of the things people do to animals around the world is disgusting and deserves punishment, but I don't think that overrides the knowledge that I would have that my money is not going towards saving a human person's life, but rather towards a mongrel dog or cat, found on the streets.

Tl;DR: Why donate money to animal welfare charities rather than cancer research and humanitarian charities?

What are the Escapist's thoughts on the matter?

 

[TimeLord]

I donate monthly to Save the Children. I'm a fan of animals in all their forms and it is a shame when you see neglected animals but at the end of the day humans that need help should take priority over animals that need help.

In an ideal world we would help everyone and everything but we aren't so we don't.

 

[Spandexpanda]

My family donate yearly to an Irish based charity for families in Africa called Bothar, and it whilst it definitely feels good to know that our money is helping others, it also baffles me how people could instead spend that money on making sure a dog or cat is looked after. In many countries wild dogs and cats roam the streets, and nobody gives money to charities there to pamper them.

 

[cheese_wizington]

My history teacher brought up the fact that we spend tons of money on pets while people in other nations are left to starve.

We just have really shitty priorities I guess.

 

[dyre]

Here's a novel idea: you could give money to both people AND animals! Believing in two causes doesn't necessitate only donating to the more important one.

That said, I only donate to humans

 

[Spandexpanda]

Here's a novel idea: you could give money to both people AND animals! Believing in two causes doesn't necessitate only donating to the more important one.

That said, I only donate to humans

As you say, two causes are more noble than one, but similarly, why give the second donation to an animal charity when you could give it to save someone's child, or an entire family in a third world country?

 

[DarkRyter]

I give them money to undermine them.

 

[dyre]

Here's a novel idea: you could give money to both people AND animals! Believing in two causes doesn't necessitate only donating to the more important one.

That said, I only donate to humans

As you say, two causes are more noble than one, but similarly, why give the second donation to an animal charity when you could give it to save someone's child, or an entire family in a third world country?

Because it's my money, and I want to spend it on animals (hypothetically, of course. I don't care about abandoned animals at all). Why do I spend money on movie tickets when I could be saving families in the third world? Why do I spend money on electricity? Why do I spend money on a Christmas gift for people I like, when that money could be spent saving lives?

The utilitarian economics thing leads us to no desirable conclusions at all. Just think of donations as morally praiseworthy, but not morally obligated. It's nice when I give money to the poor, but if I spend it on other things because I want to, that's fine too.

 

[Spandexpanda]

The utilitarian economics thing leads us to no desirable conclusions at all. Just think of donations as morally praiseworthy, but not morally obligated. It's nice when I give money to the poor, but if I spend it on other things because I want to, that's fine too.

No, you're totally right, and in context, I'm sure there are many people who do not give to charity, and fair play to them, they can do with their money as they wish. For the sake of the argument let's create a hypothetical scenario: every family which would be predisposed to donating a monthly sum, let's say £3, to a charity, has to select a charity. So why choose an animal charity over a humanitarian charity?

 

[dyre]

The utilitarian economics thing leads us to no desirable conclusions at all. Just think of donations as morally praiseworthy, but not morally obligated. It's nice when I give money to the poor, but if I spend it on other things because I want to, that's fine too.

No, you're totally right, and in context, I'm sure there are many people who do not give to charity, and fair play to them, they can do with their money as they wish. For the sake of the argument let's create a hypothetical scenario: every family which would be predisposed to donating a monthly sum, let's say £3, to a charity, has to select a charity. So why choose an animal charity over a humanitarian charity?

Well, that's a pretty weird scenario. But I'll try make a argument in this case.

Let's say your family is Indian, or w/e. The crisis of the hour is, uh, a tidal wave washing away half of Madagascar and a hurricane blowing away Vietnam. A lot of people are pouring money into that, for the immediate survival of thousands/millions/etc of displaced people, but you'd rather put your money in a charity that helps children born into lower castes to get a better chance at getting a good education and career. It's a call that appeals to you more because your family had a really tough time during your childhood, and you feel more inclined to help others in that situation.

The Madagascar and Vietnam charities have greater need, but if you feel more inclined to help another cause, one that also desperately needs money, is that wrong? If we all only donated to the most immediately important problems, we'd only help one group of people at a time, when there are lots of groups that need a lot of help.

 

[Spandexpanda]

Let's say your family is Indian, or w/e. The crisis of the hour is, uh, a tidal wave washing away half of Madagascar and a hurricane blowing away Vietnam. A lot of people are pouring money into that, for the immediate survival of thousands/millions/etc of displaced people, but you'd rather put your money in a charity that helps children born into lower castes to get a better chance at getting a good education and career. It's a call that appeals to you more because your family had a really tough time during your childhood, and you feel more inclined to help others in that situation.

The Madagascar and Vietnam charities have greater need, but if you feel more inclined to help another cause, one that also desperately needs money, is that wrong? If we all only donated to the most immediately important problems, we'd only help one group of people at a time, when there are lots of groups that need a lot of help.

I would say that helping either of the charities is equally worthy in this case as the emergency relief is obviously going to be supported by emergency measures by the UN and Red Cross, etc, plus government donations and aid, whereas the development charity is a long term goal and as such has far reaching benefits. Even if the emergency charity was not going to be aided by the international community, then I still feel both are equally valid. Both help humans improve their situation, and whilst one may be more pertinent at the moment, both are important.

For me, neither is the wrong choice, even given that nobody helps Madagascar or Vietnam.

 

[dyre]

Let's say your family is Indian, or w/e. The crisis of the hour is, uh, a tidal wave washing away half of Madagascar and a hurricane blowing away Vietnam. A lot of people are pouring money into that, for the immediate survival of thousands/millions/etc of displaced people, but you'd rather put your money in a charity that helps children born into lower castes to get a better chance at getting a good education and career. It's a call that appeals to you more because your family had a really tough time during your childhood, and you feel more inclined to help others in that situation.

The Madagascar and Vietnam charities have greater need, but if you feel more inclined to help another cause, one that also desperately needs money, is that wrong? If we all only donated to the most immediately important problems, we'd only help one group of people at a time, when there are lots of groups that need a lot of help.

I would say that helping either of the charities is equally worthy in this case as the emergency relief is obviously going to be supported by emergency measures by the UN and Red Cross, etc, plus government donations and aid, whereas the development charity is a long term goal and as such has far reaching benefits. Even if the emergency charity was not going to be aided by the international community, then I still feel both are equally valid. Both help humans improve their situation, and whilst one may be more pertinent at the moment, both are important.

For me, neither is the wrong choice, even given that nobody helps Madagascar or Vietnam.

You think creating favorable educational/economic conditions is as important as saving lives? :\

How about donating money to help inner city kids get exposed to international cultures? Surely some charities for improving the lives of humans are less important than others. My point is, there are a lot of worthy causes in the world, and people should donate to the ones they believe in the most, not just the objectively most important one. Spread the wealth, or w/e.

 

[Spandexpanda]

Improving the quality of life by

You think creating favorable educational/economic conditions is as important as saving lives? :\

How about donating money to help inner city kids get exposed to international cultures? Surely some charities for improving the lives of humans are less important than others. My point is, there are a lot of worthy causes in the world, and people should donate to the ones they believe in the most, not just the objectively most important one. Spread the wealth, or w/e.

In your example it would elevate people in India from a third-world existence in slums and terrible living conditions into a position in which they are able to support themselves and live in conditions in which their life expectancy is not quite so low. I would classify that as a noble cause.

When you put it like that though, no, creating favourable educational or economic conditions is not as important as saving lives. I appreciate that some charities are more important than others, but comparing a charity that allows an Indian child to not die of dysentery and live in better conditions to a charity that allows mongrel dogs to live comfortably until they're put down by the RSPCA is hardly a fair comparison.

 

[dyre]

You think creating favorable educational/economic conditions is as important as saving lives? :\

How about donating money to help inner city kids get exposed to international cultures? Surely some charities for improving the lives of humans are less important than others. My point is, there are a lot of worthy causes in the world, and people should donate to the ones they believe in the most, not just the objectively most important one. Spread the wealth, or w/e.

In your example it would elevate people in India from a third-world existence in slums and terrible living conditions into a position in which they are able to support themselves and live in conditions in which their life expectancy is not quite so low. I would classify that as a noble cause.

When you put it like that though, no, creating favourable educational or economic conditions is not as important as saving lives. I appreciate that some charities are more important than others, but comparing a charity that allows an Indian child to not die of dysentery and live in better conditions to a charity that allows mongrel dogs to live comfortably until they're put down by the RSPCA is hardly a fair comparison.

Come on, don't twist my meaning. I'm talking about charities that are non-essential to the survival of the people they help, not charities that protect people from dysentery.

Here's my question, and for the sake of the question I'm going to assume that you consider helping animals to be a good action (albeit just a slightly good one).

If the Indian charity (or, the inner city exposure to culture one) and the animal charity are both of less importance than the disaster relief charity, then why is it ok to donate to one but not the other? After all, they are both lesser causes that people feel personally attached to.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

my school holds a coffee morning every year for Macmillan and we consistently raise over £10,000.
other than that, i don't donate to charity and don't plan to.
sorry, but if you've been around for two years and are trying to shock me into donating money because there's LESS of the thing you aim to provide then when you started/more of what you want to prevent (which seems to be the case based on the figures they rattle off) then you're obviously doing a piss-poor job, or blowing all the money on something else.
Honestly, all i hear is basically "Since last year, these countries lose 10 people a day because of terrible water, and this number increases monthly. By giving us money, we can provide non-fatal water." and have done for about two years now. All i hear is 'We need money to stop this problem... We still need money because the problem has gotten WORSE.'

 

[werty10089]

This might seem kind of lame but rather than hoff my coffers out overseas I just weekly give some money to some of the poorer kids or homeless people I see around. Even the thugish ones, or the ones that completely deserve to be in the situation they are in. I'm not against overseas donations, but seeing someone smile after you bring them a coffee and a doughnut is a pretty nice feeling, even if some of them are known thieves. It troubles me that most people have an adversity to sympathize with criminals, but I personally think it's something everyone should at least try to do.

 

[JoJo]

I don't understand animal charities either personally since I value humans over animals, but some people do seem to have a sedimental attachment to them. I don't regularly donate to any charities other than the occasional ad-hoc since I'm a poor student right now but I do voluntary work every week so I do my bit.

 

[Jarvaelison]

Why do I donate to animal charities? Because I give to Salvation Army every year, and donate my outgrown/unwanted clothing, and do volunteer work at homeless shelters. My money goes to animals because they can't defend themselves/better their lives without my financial help. I can give my time and my physical help to people, and I enjoy doing it, but when confronted with the thought of innocent animals suffering at the hands of their owners, something in me just clicks - they need my money more than any child with a cleft palate in Africa.

Do I say this because I hate children? No, not at all. I say this because I know that at about 1 to 5 odds, more people give money to those kinds of charities. The Ronald McDonald House is the most popular charity in the U.S. I feel that my dollars are more crucial for the ASPCA, who have fewer donors per year.

 

[Spandexpanda]

If the Indian charity (or, the inner city exposure to culture one) and the animal charity are both of less importance than the disaster relief charity, then why is it ok to donate to one but not the other? After all, they are both lesser causes that people feel personally attached to.

I apologise if I came across as twisting your words, I merely replied as I understood your comment to read.

Well personally, I wouldn't donate to either of them, but I can more understand why some people would donate to the humanitarian charity as it still helps the less fortunate human population. Gosh, I'm coming across as a human supremacist now (well, I guess most people in the world are) but still. In my view, donating to help humans is pretty much always going to trump donating to animals, unless they're endangered, and then they would be equally valuable to a minor humanitarian charity, such as the educational one.

[quote="Jarvaelison" post="18.327647.13361733"I can give my time and my physical help to people, and I enjoy doing it, but when confronted with the thought of innocent animals suffering at the hands of their owners, something in me just clicks - they need my money more than any child with a cleft palate in Africa.
[/quote]

To me, it seems like the inverse: I'd much rather go out and volunteer with the RSPCA, or adopt a rescue, and then donate money to a charity in which it'd be unlikely that my presence would really be of benefit (such as Cancer Research UK or some such), although I do appreciate your position.