William MacAskill argues in his book “Doing Good Better”, that we ought to donate towards charities that are the most effective. However, he also asserts that it is not morally justifiable to give to a cause that is close to one’s heart, insofar the charity the agent chooses to support is due to a subjective reason. He proposes this, because the charity may not be as effective and efficient as another one we could support with the same resources. Problematically, if we were to listen to MacAskill, there could be counterfactual consequences in adhering to what he proposes. In effect, this essay aims to argue against MacAskill, and assert that it is permissible to donate to a charity that is close to one’s heart. Insofar there is an appropriate
…show more content…
QALY is a measurement system that evaluates the good caused by medical intervention (or any form of intervention that will have a positive effect on people). If we can give someone a year of perfect health in a developing country, then that would be worth 1 QALY (51). The significant characteristic of QALY is that is impartial towards any charitable cause, because it focuses specifically on how effective and efficient a charity can aid people. The QALY system ensures we are donating resources efficiently through a fair/equal manner to resolve suffering wherever it is occurring in the world. He demonstrates the utility of this measurement with a graph that uses the QALY measurement on how we can effectively, or non-effectively donate 1000$. The effective good would be donating money to a charity that would distribute insecticide sprayed bed-nets to high risk malaria locations. Insofar the mortality rate is caused by Malaria. Ideally, these types of charity are efficient since it can aid many people, and effective since it prevents avoidable deaths. In effect, donating 1000$ to this type of charity can potentially generate 10 QALYs. However, non-effective charities that don't generate nearly as much QALYs would be a charity focused on Kaposi-Sarcoma relief, which would only aid a few individuals, and not restore them back to full health since it would require more …show more content…
Insofar we are choosing between helping a cause we are partial towards, or an effective charity. MacAskill asserts it is morally unjustifiable the agent acts partially towards a cause that is close to their hearts. It is because the agent would be overlooking the potential that they could have effectively helped more people with the same resources. In effect, MacAskill asserts we are treating those we could have efficiently helped unfairly, because we chose to aid a small group out of a subjective factor. However, the agent’s intention of donating towards a cause is motivated solely by the direct experience with a dilemma. An example is a woman who was in a physically abusive relationship. It is possible that this individual did not have the resources to support her through her abuse. In effect, she chooses to donate towards the amnesty international, in hope that other help women who was/are in the same situation as she once was will receive the aid and support. Additionally, it ought to be taken in to consideration that agent who donate towards a specific cause is doing so to cope with their own experiences. The idea that their donations will help relieve someone from a similar form of suffering they have also experienced, may psychologically eases to the agent. Arguably, it would be wrong to tell the women who has had a first-hand experience of abuse that their decision of donating towards a cause that will
QALY is a measurement system that evaluates the good caused by medical intervention (or any form of intervention that will have a positive effect on people). If we can give someone a year of perfect health in a developing country, then that would be worth 1 QALY (51). The significant characteristic of QALY is that is impartial towards any charitable cause, because it focuses specifically on how effective and efficient a charity can aid people. The QALY system ensures we are donating resources efficiently through a fair/equal manner to resolve suffering wherever it is occurring in the world. He demonstrates the utility of this measurement with a graph that uses the QALY measurement on how we can effectively, or non-effectively donate 1000$. The effective good would be donating money to a charity that would distribute insecticide sprayed bed-nets to high risk malaria locations. Insofar the mortality rate is caused by Malaria. Ideally, these types of charity are efficient since it can aid many people, and effective since it prevents avoidable deaths. In effect, donating 1000$ to this type of charity can potentially generate 10 QALYs. However, non-effective charities that don't generate nearly as much QALYs would be a charity focused on Kaposi-Sarcoma relief, which would only aid a few individuals, and not restore them back to full health since it would require more …show more content…
Insofar we are choosing between helping a cause we are partial towards, or an effective charity. MacAskill asserts it is morally unjustifiable the agent acts partially towards a cause that is close to their hearts. It is because the agent would be overlooking the potential that they could have effectively helped more people with the same resources. In effect, MacAskill asserts we are treating those we could have efficiently helped unfairly, because we chose to aid a small group out of a subjective factor. However, the agent’s intention of donating towards a cause is motivated solely by the direct experience with a dilemma. An example is a woman who was in a physically abusive relationship. It is possible that this individual did not have the resources to support her through her abuse. In effect, she chooses to donate towards the amnesty international, in hope that other help women who was/are in the same situation as she once was will receive the aid and support. Additionally, it ought to be taken in to consideration that agent who donate towards a specific cause is doing so to cope with their own experiences. The idea that their donations will help relieve someone from a similar form of suffering they have also experienced, may psychologically eases to the agent. Arguably, it would be wrong to tell the women who has had a first-hand experience of abuse that their decision of donating towards a cause that will