We have elsewhere defended the view that, if you are going to give to charity, and all other things are equal, you ought to give to the charities that would use your gift to do the most good. Thomas Sinclair has recently challenged both this view and our arguments. He holds that the view has counterintuitive implications, and that our arguments presuppose a controversial, broadly consequentialist moral framework. We here respond. We argue that the counterintuitive implications of the view are not reasons to reject it, and that our arguments can be revised in ways that should make them acceptable to everyone, consequentialists and non-consequentialists alike.
Global Priorities Seminar Convenors: Prof Hilary Greaves and Dr Michelle Hutchinson