Altruism Beyond Empathy
“This is about building on a wonderful tradition of philanthropy that will ultimately help the world become a much better place.” Bill Gates, About - The Giving Pledge, date unknown.
“Unrestricted donating sounds more like willy-nilly giving to me. When I donate to a nonprofit, I want to know what my money is being used for. Nonprofit organizations need to be held accountable for money they receive and where the money goes. Donors want to know if their money is making an impact on the specific causes they believe in. Therefore, I am leery of unrestricted giving to nonprofits.” Melissa Martin, Ph.D., The Published Reporter, Op-Ed: Unrestricted Giving To Nonprofits Seems Dodgy – The Published Reporter®, Aug 4, 2022
The Giving Pledge was formed in 2010 by Melinda French Gates, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet. As of the date of this writing, 236 very wealthy people (think billionaires and those who can afford to hang out with them) from 28 countries have pledged to “…commit to give the majority of their wealth to charitable causes, either during their lifetimes or in their wills.”
Yea! The robber barons of our era are altruistic!
It is unfair to call them robber barons. I don’t know them. I envy their high accomplishment. Nevertheless, it is a common sentiment. But along the lines of Dr. Martin’s piece, I’m skeptical. The pledgees have accumulated wealth they can’t consume. Pledging it costs them nothing. Otherwise, their inheritance would dissolve into consumption and mismanagement by the third generation; or be absorbed into the irrepressible appetites of governments. But will “…willy-nilly giving…” of large sums to undirected charities really “…help the world become a much better place”?
My response relies on my theory of the “range of empathy.” As non-billionaires, we give as we empathize, which diminishes with distance and visibility. How many people would we give all our money to save their life? Children and spouses for sure; siblings maybe. But cousins? Friends? Friends of friends? There is a limit. Similarly, how many needy people would we give $1,000 with no expectation of repayment? Probably more, given the lower commitment, but likely limited to friends and relatives with genuine need. And how much would we give to a stranger holding a sign at a stop light? Probably not much. Yet, everyone I know would feed a starving child we saw on the street. In all these cases, our empathy is triggered by awareness and limited by our sense of accountability and confidence of the need.
I suggest the range of empathy is mathematically describable, common to most humans, and may also describe the size of successful tribes. For us non-billionaires, our most effective charity will always be within our range of empathy.
Within the range of empathy, much good can be done with very little. Any of us would unconditionally offer our home, our food, and our possessions to relieve the suffering of a loved one. This is done often and is perfectly efficient. Distress relieved by the frictionless gift of exactly the goods or services needed. The benefit is immediate. The incremental cost is small, requiring mostly our commitment. It scales at the tribal level with minimal added costs, as demonstrated by direct caregiving provided by extended families, small communities, and churches.
Once the range of empathy is exceeded, inefficiencies compound and the intended benefits diminish. Money donated through larger organizations to relieve more distant suffering is inherently less effective than the examples above. Intermediaries must interpret the need and be supported to do so. Relief only happens when sufferers receive the goods or services that they need. Those must be conscientiously acquired and distributed. Organizations must raise funds and provide surety of good-faith administration. This introduces the cost of marketing and internal controls…, and also uncertainty. To Dr. Martin’s point, a donor may give generously to support the cause of a large organization; but they cannot know for certain that the intended benefit is achieved. The larger the organization the more uncertainty.
Organizations that support infra-structure for disaster relief or humanitarian crises need to be large. In performing this work, organizations may compete with, interfere with, or duplicate the purview of governments. It is fair to examine which is the best delivery system for the benefit. I have often pondered this when I consider donating to serve a need that I have already paid tax to remedy. I speculate that large benevolence systems dilute the responsibilities of communities and governments to provide self-care, and in some cases may mask or encourage corruption.
If so, how can The Giving Pledge make the world a much better place? In 1901, Andrew Carnegie, the very caricature of a robber baron, examined the issue in his essay collection The Gospel of Wealth. Carnegie is no friend of humanitarian charity. But our system of libraries would not exist without him. Love him or hate him, his points refined with a century of social progress may inform us. I had three takeaways. First, directly donating to offset poverty does more harm than good. Second, civic improvements funded by charity need self-sustenance from the community. Third, large donations are of little value without the contribution of informed and conscientious effort.
To be a benefit, large scale philanthropy must address worthy opportunities not otherwise served. For example, equipping a community where good-faith government is challenged. That could be anything capital intensive and useful that a community needs: replacing a lead-contaminated water system, building an athletic complex, outfitting a disaster relief center, etc. The wealthy often seek to perpetuate their passions through their gifts with tribute buildings, galleries, theaters, etc. This may benefit a community if it adds charm and self-sustains, but it warrants pragmatic assessment. More broadly, risky research or development, things that can be done faster than government can act, and efforts for which payback only comes across generations. Opportunities abound in global education, health, and scientific research.
Altruism beyond empathy is complex. The choices and their effective implementation require more than money. It requires the animating spirit of motivated givers. Love them or hate them, The Giving Pledgees are among the most ambitious minds on earth. But their gift of wealth is innocuous without their stewardship. Perhaps that should be their pledge.