August 19, 2013--With Charity to Some

A friend from an old southern family lived off income from her grandfather's trust. He was wise to place his assets there since his only daughter, my fiend's mother, wasn't all that well physically or, more germane, mentally. She had a troubled life that included much drinking and ended sadly, in the custody of an institution. There was a great deal of family money and the place she lived out her final years was at least kindly and situated in a luxurious park-like setting.

Grandfather S____  set up the trust so that when his only daughter and grandchild, my friend, who also had issues that included too much drinking, died, all remaining assets would pass to the ASPCA. He was that devoted a lover of animals.

When my friend and I spoke about him and how he made and planned to dispose of his money, though we too cared about animals, we wondered why someone like her grandfather wanted to help cats and dogs but not people.

And then later, when I went to work at the Ford Foundation, I wondered further that with all the suffering in the world the foundation didn't devote all of its assets to alleviating poverty, inequality, intolerance, and violence.

Why make tens of millions of dollars a year in grants to cultural institutions when children are ill, starving, and in too many places brutalized? Yes, preserving indigenous cultures and the arts of disenfranchised people is a worthy effort; but in comparison to the more basic needs of people, why would one want to make that choice?

This was not for me to say. It wasn't my money that was at issue, but the foundation's; and, on balance, I felt I could live with Ford's agenda, most of which was devoted to alleviating various forms of human inequality and suffering.

But, as a liberally-educated person, who enjoyed the arts, even finding them essential to a rich and diverse life, I did not press these issues, feeling fortunate to be able to direct most of the resources for which I was responsible to institutions and individuals who were struggling to improve schools, end discrimination, and foster equality of opportunity.

But now, as more money becomes available for institutional and individual philanthropy, people in the field of charitable giving are also asking versions of my ASPCA question.

For example, why give $100,000 to a museum building fund when that same $100,000 could reduce the incidence of trachoma (which leads inevitably to blindness in affected young people), at $100 a treatment, for 1,000 people?

For arts lovers with money to donate, this is a complicated conundrum.

In an ideal world, we should do both and many more important and worthwhile things--protect natural resources, reform schools, expand health care, build cultural institutions, save indigenous languages, provide potable drinking water, reduce violence against women, support efforts to reduce intolerance, fund struggling artists, endow universities and schools of music . . .

But to those who advocate "effective altruism," the choices--even though it's "your money"--are clear in a less than perfect world. As much as we want dogs and cats to be treated well, shouldn't eliminating trachoma (which is doable) come first?