In my series on GiveWell, I mentioned that my mother’s friend Charlie, who runs a soup kitchen, gives away surplus donations to other charities, mostly ones he knows well. I used this as an example of the kind of behavior you might hope to see in a cooperative situation where people have convergent goals.
I recently had a chance to speak with Charlie, and he mentioned something else I found surprising: his soup kitchen made a decision not to accept donations online. They only took paper checks. This is because, since they get enough money that way, they don’t want to accumulate more money that they don’t know how to use.
When I asked why, Charlie told me that it would be bad for the donors to support a charity if they haven’t shown up in person to have a sense of what it does.
At first I was confused. This didn’t seem like very consequentialist thinking. I briefly considered the possibility that Charlie was being naïve, or irrationally traditionalist, or thinking about what resembles his idea of a good charity. But after thinking about it for a moment, I realized that Charlie was getting something deeply right that almost everyone gets wrong, at least where money was involved. He was trying to maximize benefits rather than costs, in a case where the costs are much easier to measure.
But is it not easier to just click on a link to donate than to personally bring the checks? Time is also a resourse, after all.
why are you donating? For the fuzzies or for the utilons? He doesn’t need more money, so slowing people down from giving to him works in his favour
Donating to a soup kitchen—probably for fuzzies.
More fuzzies are gained from seeing the kitchen in person than donating from a distance.
Seems to me like this would likely be much more than offset by the reduced number of donations.