Disclaimer: I work at a philanthropic funder and advisor, which has influenced some of the ideas in this post. However, all views expressed here are my own—not those of my employer.
An impersonal but useful gift is almost always better than a unique but unneeded one. Which would you prefer: a $100 check/Venmo/gift card, or a $100 outfit you’ll never wear?
Of course the very best gifts are personalized—the amazing thing the recipient didn’t know they needed. The mistake many of us make when gifting is in trying to force the magic.
It’s helpful to keep a list of gift ideas for important people in your life. If you find yourself thinking “So-and-so would love this!” or hear them mention wanting something outside of a typical gift-giving occasion, write it down and thank yourself next time their birthday rolls around.
Conversely, consider not waiting for a typical gift-giving occasion. Receiving a “just because” present when you weren’t expecting it is a truly delightful experience!
As a general rule, recurring donations are better than one-time donations. With recurring donations, you make generosity a habit and end up giving more in the long run. It’s also difficult for me to imagine the organization that prefers hard-to-predict influxes of cash over a steady stream of revenue.
Religion is often useful for motivating and framing charitable giving. Being in a community of like-minded people offers social proof/an incentive structure for generosity—and indeed, religious people do give more to charity on average than secular people.1
From my own faith tradition, for example, I take seriously the idea that one should aim to give at least ten percent of one’s income,2 and that helping those in need is not merely a kindness but a moral obligation. (Unlike the word “charity”—which has at its root caritas, meaning “love/dearness”—the Hebrew equivalent tzedakah comes from the word “justice.”)
But this is not to say that you should blindly follow religion in your giving. The Crusades were, from the crusaders’ viewpoint, an act of “charity. God knows how many priests have abused or embezzled in His name!
For example, a Jewish teaching I have some ambivalence about asserts that anonymous giving is higher on the “ladder of tzedakah” than giving in which the donor is known to the recipient. At the same time, surely most people are more generous when they’re aware of other generous people in their circle—suggesting that if you want to do the most good, you may not want to do it anonymously (i.e., in the hopes of influencing others).3 Or, as another great Jewish thinker learned the hard way, perhaps the key is to simply donate anonymously and tell people about it.
If you’re donating money, it’s worth considering whether you might do so more cost-effectively. Different programs and interventions can have vastly different impacts; the best available evidence suggests you can save a life for as little as $3,000. Of course cost-effectiveness isn’t the only thing to think about in your giving, but on the margin most of us would probably do well to let our charity be driven a bit less by what we simply happen to know/care about, and a bit more by the numbers.4
If you’re looking for where to start doing this, I recommend GiveWell, which focuses on the most cost-effective global health interventions. If you have concerns about paternalism—or just favor a simpler approach—I recommend GiveDirectly, which makes cash transfers to people living in extreme poverty, and is also quite cost-effective. (I donate to both.)
Regardless of the approach or context, I believe in retaining an emotional connection to why you are giving. Giving—to loved ones or to strangers, by spreadsheets or by spiritual fervor—is a fundamentally humanizing act, one which enlarges and enlivens our experience of the world. As George Eliot wrote, over 150 years ago:
The presence of a noble nature, generous in its wishes, ardent in its charity, changes the lights for us: we begin to see things again in their larger, quieter masses, and to believe that we too can be seen and judged in the wholeness of our character.
May your cup runneth over this holiday season!
This factoid—which refers to both absolute giving and giving as a fraction of income—comes stamped with the old caveat that correlation ≠ causation. (It could be that e.g., donating to charity makes people more spiritually inclined, or that there is some third hidden variable increasing both religiosity and charitable giving.)
Additionally, the giving gap here is driven in large part by donations to religious institutions themselves. (Whether this is a legitimate example of “charity” of course depends on your attitude toward religious institutions.) Regardless, the point remains that religious affiliation does seem to inspire more giving of one kind or another.
If you’re interested in giving ten percent of your income, you might consider the Giving What We Can pledge. (As of writing, I give ten percent but have not yet taken the pledge because I’ve wanted to first make sure this kind of financial commitment feels sustainable for me.)
To elaborate on this point a bit: I wholeheartedly agree with Maimonides on the value of donating via a trusted intermediary, and I understand the fear of self-aggrandizement/virtue signaling when the donor is known. I just think it’s a mistake to privilege anonymity/unimpeachable intentions to the point of possibly undermining real-world impact—what I’ve described elsewhere as pure motive fallacy. In fact, it’s often possible to act in a way that is both good for you and good for the world!
For example, American universities received $61.5 billion in 2024 while in the same year, global health funding totaled just $49.6 billion. I had a great time in college, and am grateful for the financial aid I received! Still, it’s hard for me to imagine the justification for prioritizing the American college experience over, say, protecting the world’s most impoverished children from malaria and lead poisoning.
(Would the world be better if 100% of giving went toward the most cost-effective global health interventions and 0% went to higher ed., art museums, etc.? Probably not! But we’re so far from that world that I don’t think it’s the right question to be asking.)
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.