The Philosophy of Earning to Give

When Singer wrote the famous article on ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’ in 1972, few people had ever thought about charity work philosophically. Since then, the issue of giving to organizations that claim to alleviate suffering in different parts of the world has been the subject of much debate. The recent discussion, developed by MacAskill (2014), who believes that individuals should pursue high paying careers and donate the excesses of their income to charity organizations. This model is commonly referred to as “earning to give”. While admitting that the approach leads to fulfillment in giving, being every person’s moral obligation and that committing to such acts can lead to a better world, such a dedication requires due diligence, economic reasoning and a demand for accountability.

According to Singer (1972), giving is every individual’s moral obligation. The author uses the morality theory of utilitarianism to explain his assertion by proclaiming that human beings should engage only in activities that lead to the happiness of everyone in society. Giving, especially to alleviate suffering, can therefore be considered part of such activities. According to Singer (1972), every person should spend their money to the extent they are able to live a modest life, while committing the rest of the excess income to helping those affected by famine amongst other disasters. The author believes that when individuals spend money on luxurious items that they can do well without, then they fail to fulfil their moral duty and are thus wrong in doing so. He thus observes that giving is not an act of charity, but an act that we are obliged to do. All factors considered, giving is in itself a good thing. The fact that it can save a life, alleviate human suffering and make the world a better place makes Singer’s ideas an ideal scenario.

MacAskill (2014) supports this assertion by developing an ideology of ‘earning to give’ by encouraging people to choose professions whereby they can earn higher salaries. Their excess earnings are in turn supposed to be donated to charity. MacAskill (2014) notes that the idea has been adopted by different countries with some employees donating 50% of their income to charity organizations. Arguably, it is in the moral instinct of most people that helping those in need is ideal. The philosophy of earning to give has received a widespread support considering the effects it may have on those experiencing untold challenges across the globe. Notably, the theory has been extended to include individuals in academic professions who have greater potential in the business world. In this case, those who can earn more income in business are advised to do so and to quit their academic professions. The intention must be solely to earn more in order to donate and do charity work.

Different authors have questioned the philosophy. For instance, Bremner (2017) indicates that the thought emphasizes more on taking care of the needs of strangers than those of individual families and communities. The author notes that such actions can lead to neglect of responsibilities. However, Unger (1996) notes that human beings have a tendency to place their families and societies before the needs of strangers and that in most cases what is considered as excess earnings do not comprise money for family or societal upkeep. In addition, this assertion fails to consider the fact that proponents of the philosophy argue for an individual giving to the extent that the sacrifice does not lead to a worse outcome. Modest living is encouraged for altruists as well as observance of moral character, under which taking care of the family and society falls. Thus, when it is within the ability of a person to earn more for charity, then they should do so. It is also noted in Singer’s article that financial aid is not the only way to appease moral character, physical aid can also go a long way in forms of volunteering (that can save money by not having to pay employees).

While noting that earning to give is in itself a good behavior, there are several issues that must be taken into account. Singer (2016) argues for effective altruism, noting that giving is not enough. The author believes that how the money is used determines how helpful the acts of charity can be. Many times, altruists have given to charity organizations without any real concern for what they do with the money. MacAskill (2014) observes that some charity organizations are corrupt, often using the resources for personal gain rather than for improving the welfare of the people. Charity organizations will often post images of people suffering, highlighting that the money collected is used to help such individuals. Whether the funds are in reality used to meet these needs has always been debatable. Singer (2016) indicates that most of the organizations are outright fraudulent. The foundations are barely transparent and thus do not deserve the donations from people who work hard to earn the money, he also mentions that financial aid is not the only way to appease moral character, physical aid can also go a long way in forms of volunteering (hence saving money by not having to pay the employees).

According to Singer (2016), most individuals Give as an emotional response. The author observes that most altruists barely engage their minds when making the decision to donate to certain organizations. As a result, their innocent actions do not have the expected outcomes. This observation leads to the claim that although earning to give is ideal, it must not be based on emotional responses. The mind must be engaged critically to avoid wasting funds. Unless rationalism is adopted, donations alone can therefore not make the world a better place. One of the issues that the givers should consider is accountability. MacAskill (2014) insists that donors should give priority to foundations that are transparent. These are organizations that give account for the money they use, list accomplishments and indicate how they bettered the lives of those in suffering. Such organizations exist, some giving annual reports that reflect money use over a certain period of time. Singer (2016) states that donors who do not seek accountability risk losing their money to fraudsters. Thus, if accountability is assessed, then earning to give can make the world a better place.

MacAskill (2014) further observes that proper money use is not a measure of its impact. Sometimes, charity organizations invest in projects that are not effective in terms of addressing the existing problems. Singer (2016) gives an example of Make-A-Wish, an organization that spent $7,500 to make a child’s wish to be Batkid come true. Apparently, the child had been receiving chemotherapy for leukemia-a killer disease. Singer argues that it was unreasonable to use such a significant amount of money just to make a boy’s wish come true. Could there have been other meaningful projects? Definitely yes. Singer (2016) believes that an emotional response to altruism blinded the company from investing in projects that would have had a greater impact than merely making a wish come true. Probably, the money could have helped three children in worse conditions. The argument herein is that altruists who earn to give must not only seek accountability, but also ensure that the use of resources have the greatest impact. Considerations here could be on how an organization chooses, evaluates and decides which projects to implement. Effective projects can evidently make the world a better place.

What is more? Bremner (2017) indicates that altruists prefer a world with less suffering and more happiness rather than a world of less happiness and more suffering. In this case, they should therefore invest in projects that maximize on the former. Arguably, how a project can lead to happiness depends on the nature of the crisis a person is experiencing at the time they receive the help. Singer (2016) affirms that when charity work is directed at individuals severely affected by a calamity, it leads to a greater good and therefore the funds are well utilized. Thompson (2015) is critical about people committing to the needs of their own societies when there are other individuals worse off in other regions. For instance, the Singer (2016) claims that donating to museums or an opera house does not lead to the greater good while there are individuals in other countries dying from starvation or lack of adequate healthcare. The question every person that is ‘earning to give’ must ask is whether his or her donations leads to a better outcome elsewhere. Giving must be directed at regions where suffering is the worst, thereby maximizing its potential impact. Happiness unlike many things in the world does not care for borders.

The argument is based on the marginal principle in economics. The concept is best explained by Thompson (2015). The author indicates that the satisfaction a person derives from taking a cup of tea is different from the contentment of an individual who already drank two cups. The former enjoys it more since he or she is thirstier. The principle is employed widely by the author, indicating that a new doctor working in the US would have a lesser impact than in Africa where there is a shortage of doctors. If such a medic decides to work in Sub-Saharan Africa, then their altruistic actions count more. Thompson notes that even when such an action is good, it would still not be the best. For instance, if the doctor chooses to work in the US and earn a high salary donating part of it to employ two doctors in Africa, then this act would lead to more good and is thus better to select. The application of economics of marginal utility is a new concept that could revolutionize a giving attitude among altruists. The shift would be worth it if the actions of genuine donors are to count in terms of making the world a better place for everyone.

The three factors, accountability, impact and effectiveness calls for all individuals ‘earning to give’ to become more rational in their activities. The commitment to seek information and engage the mind is one that differentiates effective altruists from other givers. The author notes that there are organizations that provide willing donors with information related to charity organizations whose activities are considered effective. These institutions are committed to tracking the use of funds at various foundations while measuring the economic benefits of their selected projects. Accessing such information is evidently not a problem for active donors. Passive givers may not in the end make the world a better place.

Wisor (2011), however, notes that there are other matters that need to be considered when assessing the impact of earning to give. He notes that in most instances, the context of the issues resulting in suffering is ignored, leading to ineffectiveness. For instance, while providing relief food to refugees is a good decision, mediation for peace to ensure related civil wars are reduced is far better. Wisor (2011) notes that economic benefits in this case do not reflect the outcomes of such peace mediations. The author further notes that the theory commits only to actions for which direct benefits can be monetized, and thus evaluated. According to the author, there are works whose benefits cannot be given a monetary value, but still provide significant benefits in the end. In addition, the author argues that existing institutions, such as churches and government entities may have significant influence on the nature of charity work that organizations can engage in. Involving them, regardless of the economic costs involved, must therefore be considered.

Conclusively, ‘earning to give’ has the power to make the world a better place for everyone. However, the effectiveness of the approach to charity work relies on several factors. To begin with, donors must demand that the charity organizations they fund account for funds utilized, they must evaluate the impact of the projects selected by these foundations, ensuring that those that lead to the greatest good are often chosen also measuring effectiveness through the concept of marginal utility is one of the radical changes in altruistic giving that will make this approach more efficient. In this case, givers can easily determine organizations that are worth donating by measuring them according to the economic benefits accrued. Considering that this information can be easily accessed, donors have no excuse but to change their approach to giving. If such considerations are made, there is no doubt that earning to give will make the world a better place.