Giving What We Can's blog, featuring the latest news from our community.

Stay up to date with Giving What We Can's blog. Featuring the latest news about our community, how to donate effectively, charity evaluation, community events and more!

Blog

footerNavigation

About Us

Contact Us

Our Team

Our Members

Our Events

Our Mistakes

Donate to Giving What We Can

About

Our Best Charities

Take A Giving Pledge

Get Involved

Make A Bequest

Videos, Books, Podcasts

FAQs

Sitemap

Learn more

Press Kit

Media Coverage

Case Studies: People Who Pledge To Give

Media

Footer Navigation

topNavigation

How to give effectively

Why give effectively

Why donate to charity

How much to donate

Anonymous donations

How rich am I?

Can money buy happiness?

Giving

Our recommended causes

Choosing a cause

Global health & development

Improving animal welfare

Safeguarding the long-term future

Advocating for effective altruism

Causes

Our recommended charities

Choosing a charity

Charity comparisons

Charity myths and misconceptions

Charities

Our blog

Our newsletter

Our podcast

Our videos

Videos, Books, Essays

Effective altruism

Resources

Guides

Our members

Team

Contact us

About us

The Pledge

Trial Pledge

Further Pledge

Bequests

Why pledge

Pledges

Share our ideas

Events

Giving Games

Charity Elections

Pledge drive

Careers

Newsletter

Get involved

Community

Donate now

Funds

Tax deductibility

Donate

My pledge

My donations

My income

My impact

Pledge

My giving

Top Navigation

Julian Hazell

The social norm of giving anonymously is impeding social progress. We would be better off as a society if we moved past this norm and instead gave publicly. Giving publicly, after all, is one way to inspire more people to give. And even if people give for partially selfish reasons (e.g., “virtue signalling” or bragging rights), their donations will still improve the world.

The idea of doing good things solely for altruistic motives does seem admirable. If we see a chance to help others, we ought to just do it regardless of any praise we might get, right? It might be nice to live in a world where everyone did good deeds solely for the sake of doing good, but in our world, people respond to many different incentives. We should not resist these incentives and instead seek to understand them so we can make meaningful progress towards solving the world’s most pressing problems at the speed they require.

All else equal, it’s better to have a big impact with mixed intentions than a small impact with purely altruistic intentions. And as it turns out, there are good reasons to believe that giving secretly might actually lower our overall impact.

What Happens When We Give to Charity in Secret?

 about a man named Yossele the Holy Miser captures the supposed virtuosity of anonymous giving.

Yossele was a very rich man who was hated for not doing anything to alleviate the suffering of those who lived in his community. The people even wanted God to punish him for his stinginess. But after Yossele died, it was discovered that he was secretly giving the local Rabbi money on a weekly basis to distribute to the needy. It turns out Yossele was quite generous after all. The Rabbi then gathered everyone in the synagogue to ask for Yossele's forgiveness. He then came to the Rabbi in a vision and said 

"I forgive everyone, because long ago I asked God to let me help people the way he does, without anyone knowing or giving thanks."

The story of Yossele the Holy Miser is an inspiring one. The people hated him. They even wanted God to punish him, and yet he still did what was right. Even after the people wronged him, he was kind enough to forgive them. That is admirable, indeed.

But what if Yossele had instead chosen to make his charitable giving public? Perhaps it would've been better for him to be open with his charity than for him to conceal his good deeds. What if he inspired other well-off people in the community to match his giving? It seems silly to think that his impact was somehow greater or more admirable simply because he hid his generosity.

Charity is For Regular People, Not Just Saints

In the real world, we cannot expect folks like Yossele to silently work on improving others’ lives while the rest of us sit idly. The thing that separates Yossele from the majority of us is that he is a remarkable character from a religious folktale centred around righteousness and other good virtues.

The same cannot (and should not) be expected of us regular folks; we’re people, not saints or paragons. But regular folks like us can make a substantial impact, especially when we work together. The world’s most pressing problems cannot afford to wait. Rather than gatekeeping charity by praising those with unrealistically pure motivations, we ought to create a culture that encourages (and celebrates) everyone who is altruistic, 

 when doing so directly inspires others to take action.

Western cultures seem to view signalling some successes as socially acceptable. If you are skeptical of this, I encourage you to scroll through your LinkedIn feed. Why is this behaviour considered taboo when charity is involved? Sharing an acceptance to a university or a prestigious job offer generally isn’t looked down upon. This makes sense — it’s great to celebrate your accomplishments and praise the people who helped get you there. But the same should apply to publicly declaring dedication to improving the world by giving to well-deserving and highly effective charities that have the potential to transform others’ lives.

There are some tremendous benefits to being public with our actions. Beyond the direct value of charity, it is important to think about the knock-on effects of encouraging others to be generous. Think about it this way: pledging to donate 10% of your income throughout your working life can positively impact the lives of many others. But you can substantially increase your contribution to the world just by inspiring one other person to join you in making the pledge!

"Ideas cannot spread unless we share them.”

As Luke Freeman pointed out in his blog post entitled "

Social Change Happens One Person at a Time, So Start Multiplying Your Impact

," we are social creatures who rely on others for cues on what we ought to do (a phenomenon known as "social proof"). Being an "early adopter," Freeman argues, can "normalise the path forward for others" to start dedicating time and money to solving the world's most pressing problems.

Again, I understand the natural urge to conceal our altruism. Telling others about our preferences, ideals, and passions can be scary, especially when it puts us at risk of seeming boastful or pretentious. But giving publicly might be needed in order to create a cascade of social change. Change will happen far too slowly --- or never at all --- if we keep quiet like Yossele. So let's speak up.

"The reality is we're all active agents in the world. We can all nudge the world towards the world that we want, or sit back and be nudged.” --- Luke Freeman

There are pressing problems in the world that many of us would like to see solved, such as global poverty, the mistreatment of animals, and climate change, to name only a few. But the gap between the world we have and the world we want is difficult to bridge when we act in silence.

The societal norm of giving anonymously might severely restrict the amount that individuals choose to give. When charity is done in silence, donors might falsely assume they are giving more than the norm. In fact, according to 

, research suggests that 72% of people give less than average, but 75% of people think they give more than average. If we were all more open about our giving, we may have a more accurate picture and be inspired to give more.

If you've ever worried about giving publicly, I hope I've given you some reasons to feel more comfortable with the idea. Let's start creating better social norms by publicly 

. Our impact will continue to increase as we spread the word and encourage others to do the same. Finally, we can look to change the norms around giving by publicly celebrating and encouraging all forms of altruism. If we do these things, perhaps one day the social norm that encouraged Yossele to give in silence will be a relic of the past.

Donating Anonymously: Should We Be Private or Public About Giving To Charity?

Luke Freeman

Something I've found to be shockingly common is that uncertainty around how much we should give to charity can often prevent people from giving anything at all.

Yet if you search the internet for advice, you'll mostly find claims that there's "no right answer" and that it's a "deeply personal decision." While these answers are largely true, they are not very helpful. They don't actually provide any actionable advice, any directions whatsoever for what we should do.

Instead of dodging the question or trying to divine a single prescriptive answer from the fabric of the universe, we are going to look at a range of standards that you could apply to your life, and recommend some approaches that might work for you.

To start with, let's look at the extremes of giving.

There are some people who believe that the right amount to give is nothing, ever. They might believe that charity doesn't help people, that it's not their responsibility, or they're not excited by the incredible opportunity most of us have to use our money to help others. If that's you, I'm not going to dissuade you here (but we recommend that you check out our 

Others believe that they should give nothing, yet. This might be suitable for you either if (a) your material circumstances are very dire; or (b) you are a 

 who is putting away money now in order to give to charity later (and have taken measures to make sure you'll actually follow through).

The other far extreme of giving is to give everything humanly possible right up until your circumstances are equal to those whose welfare you are concerned about.

One of the most powerful moral arguments for charitable giving comes from the renowned philosopher 

According to Singer, given that there are millions of people around the world in need, engaging in frivolous consumption instead of donating to charity is quite like walking past a drowning child and not saving them for fear of damaging a fine suit.

The trouble with this thought experiment is that, taken to its extreme logical conclusion, it becomes very 

. Not only are we morally required to give something to help others, but we should give all we possibly can.

One man did just this. After converting to Christianity, evolutionary scientist 

 was convinced that he had a moral obligation to give away all of his possessions to the poor.

Price would seek out the homeless and give them anything they asked for, from his money to the clothes off his back. If they needed a place to sleep, he hosted them at his place indefinitely. Eventually he had given away so much that he became homeless and as poor as those that he was helping. This, very unfortunately, eventually led to his suicide.

His altruism is in many ways admirable, but it's clearly not a healthy path to follow, and is ultimately going to be self-defeating (leading to less good for everyone involved, not more).

So, when we look down the barrel of these two extremes and see that neither of them are right for us, we may ask ourselves this this begs the question: "What is the right amount for us to give to charity?"

Let's look at some standard approaches to giving.

If you feel a strong moral obligation to help others, you might decide to give what you don't need. This idea has been formalised by Oxford philosopher 

 who was inspired by ethicists such as Peter Singer.

In 2009, Toby felt that he had a true moral obligation to give what he didn't need. He knew that a significant portion of his income could be so much more valuable to others than it would be to himself.

To put this into practice, he set himself a living allowance and then gave everything that he earned above that level away. He calls this the 

 everything above his inflation-adjusted living allowance. Many others have since taken this Further Pledge, and even more people have modelled their giving on this 'living allowance' idea. Deciding what they need to live on sustainably, and giving away the rest.

You might be more motivated to have a steady increase in your standard of living as your income rises, but still want to give a meaningful amount that is more generous than what most people give

 in your country, it's likely that you can give more generously than an average person can give. If you were born in a high-income country it is likely that your income is 

 and roughly 100x that of someone living in extreme poverty.

Philosopher Willam MacAskill calls this the 

"Imagine a happy hour where you could either buy yourself a beer for five dollars or buy someone else a beer for five cents. If that were the case, we'd probably be pretty generous --next round's on me!" -- 

 to choose to be generous with their relative wealth - whether they see this as an obligation to share their luck, or as an incredible opportunity to 

Religious traditions across the world also ask their followers to not just give, but to give generously. In Judaism and Christianity this is made more explicit as a 10% of income contribution referred to as '

 also uses 10% as a benchmark number for giving generously.

Ten percent has a few perks as a giving standard:

It is low enough that it's accessible to those who have means;

It is high enough that it really feels meaningful to most people;

It is much more generous than what most people are otherwise giving;

It's not so high as to be off-putting or overly demanding; and finally

Many people would jump at the chance to take a job if it were more meaningful, even if it paid 10% less.

So if you're seeking to make a meaningful contribution (and you aren't under any financial strain), this is probably the right number for you.

If you care about helping others but don't want to give more than average, you could aim to give what an average person gives.

This can vary significantly by income level and country, but for many people this is 

At the very least you could give what you wouldn't miss. This is the idea behind the 

 pledge, both of which encourage people to give at least 1% of their income. Similarly, 

 pledge recommends a variable amount that's calibrated to have a "barely noticeable" effect on your standard of living.

Very few people would notice a difference if they were to live off only 99% of their income, rather than 100% of it. 

 would take a job that paid 1% less if it brought them more meaning in life.

We've covered some income-based giving standards, however there are a few other approaches that you may take:

 where billionaires pledge to give away at least half of their wealth, and 

 where muslims donate 2.5% of their wealth each year.

Event-based approaches such as increasing your giving when you get a raise; 

, or tax rebate; giving when you receive an inheritance (e.g. 

); or giving from a liquidity event such as the sale of a business (e.g. 

The 'fair share' approach where you give the amount that would lead to the best outcome if everyone in the world gave the same amount. The problem with this approach is that most people will not give their fair share, and it's incredibly difficult to calculate what your fair share would in fact be.

 where you seek out high paying jobs so that you can give much more than ordinarily (e.g. working on Wall Street while donating 50% of your income).

 where you give from your estate when you pass away.

Now that we've covered some of the most common standards, here's what I would personally recommend.

Unless you're financially insecure, I recommend that you start giving something.

Getting into the habit of giving will change who you are as a person. You will become 'someone who gives money to charity' and will start to experience the joy and satisfaction that you get when you know that you're helping others with your money.

Beyond giving something, I recommend that you pick a standard that makes it meaningful to you. Be bold, be ambitious, be generous!

You might want to start small and work your way up -- each year -- to your ideal target, sit with that for a while, and then challenge yourself.

My favourite example;one couple reported that they increase their giving by 1% of their income each year on their wedding anniversary.

If you're wealthy, give much more. Perhaps follow the example of many notable philanthropists like 

 and start drawing down that wealth before you die so that there's less inequality in the world, and so that your children will not be spoilt with excess wealth.

It's not just how much you give, but also how effectively you give that matters. This is because the 

A $1 donation to a highly effective charity is going to be worth tens, hundreds, or thousands of times more than the same donation to an average charity... and worth infinitely more than a donation to a charity that accidentally does harm.

Giving 10 times more effectively is much easier than giving 10 times more.

Combining these two approaches is ideal: if you give 10 times more and 10 times more effectively then you've increased your impact a hundredfold. Impact multiplication is a really powerful force.

For more on this topic, I recommend that you check out Giving What We Can's 

Another way to multiply your impact is to influence others through 

. This is the well-established psychological phenomenon entailing that people tend to do what they see others doing. Because as humans, we are incredibly social animals.

If everyone kept their giving private, most people would think that giving isn't normal. On the other hand, giving publicly can influence others to follow your behaviour.

By being public (but not boastful) about your giving decisions -- for example by making a 

 -- you can help create a social norm where people give more, and give more effectively.

Take the view of giving over your lifetime. Ask yourself 'what will be sustainable? because you don't want to end up like George Price, and you don't want to 

give too much, too soon if it causes you to burn out and stop giving

Take the time to plan your giving. Think carefully about how much you want to give and how you are going to do it.

I recommend you also give regularly. This is because regular donors are more generous, and therefore more likely to have a bigger impact. They are estimated to give 

around 42% more per year, and up to 440% more over a lifetime

Giving habitually means you are more likely to continue, less likely to skip donations, and you can budget your giving much better.

Regular giving also helps the recipient charity to operate more efficiently since they will receive more predictable revenue, and also spend less on fundraising.

If you are a patient philanthropist and want to invest to give later, use a mechanism like a 

 to get the immediate tax benefit while preventing 

, and making sure that you'll live up to your values.

Finally, share the joy of giving with other people. This will not only help establish norms around giving, but it can help you make better decisions, and you will have people to share this meaningful part of your life with.

Involving your family with your giving is a great way of building a family culture of care, generosity and critical thinking. Involving your friends and colleagues can be a great activity to bond over. You could try running a fundraiser, a giving circle, or a 

If you want to discuss your donation decisions with others, you're very welcome to join the 

At the end of the day, charity is optional. No one is forcing you to give away your money, it is truly your choice...and that is what makes it so incredibly empowering.

We get to choose to make the world a better place. We each have an incredible opportunity to use our money to help others.

Not only does this make the world better, 

Blog

Donating Anonymously: Should We Be Private or Public About Giving To Charity?

How much money should we donate to charity?

May 2021 Newsletter

I Dedicated My Birthday to the Against Malaria Foundation

Shouldn't we address human suffering before working to reduce animal suffering?

Giving What We Can is Sponsoring 2021 Charity Elections

Shouldn’t we just focus on economic growth to lift people out of poverty?

Charity begins at home; shouldn't we solve our own problems before helping others?

Member Profile: Achim Fischbach

Do effective altruists only value short-term, measurable outcomes?