Doing the Most Good vs. Helping the Most Urgent Needs

Suppose you want to be charitable and make a humanitarian difference in the world (hopefully each of us doesn't merely imagine this). You might ask yourself this:

(1)What's the most urgent cause I can give to?

This seems like an important question, no? Roughly, I take it that a cause is urgent when it involves something of great value (moral or otherwise) needing immediate attention/action in order to prevent being lost, harmed, made worse, jeopardized, etc. Depending on what's at stake, it seems like we should have some degree of concern for urgent causes. According to Peter Singer, however, (1) isn't the right question to ask. Rather, you should ask yourself:

(2) Where can I do the most good?

Here's why. Singer thinks that not all urgent causes are ones for which my time, energy, and resources can be best used. For example, global warming is a major problem according to many scientists. However, "there are...already many governments and organizations working toward getting [international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions]. [Hence,] it is difficult for private donors to be confident that anything they can do will make that agreement more likely" (Singer, p. 118). If so, the investments of these donors might be going to waste. But individuals can make a real difference to the number of mosquito nets distributed to those living in malaria-prone regions. Related to this, some urgent causes are already being addressed by so many people that it might be appropriate to gives one's resources and time to an important but less urgent cause. If one has reason to believe that an urgent cause is being sufficiently dealt with, then one's resources might do more good elsewhere. Of course, in some cases, the most good you can do will involve giving to an urgent cause. In other cases, the most good you can do will involve giving to a less urgent cause. That's why we need to ask question-(2), rather than question-(1). Singer describes his own situation in the 70's:

I was already a vegetarian, had marched against the Vietnam War, and was donating to Oxfam. Where should I direct my time, energy, and whatever ability I might have to argue in favor of one of these causes? I didn't try to answer that question by thinking about which issue is the most urgent...but by thinking about where I could make the most difference. And that, I decided, was the issue of animal suffering because whereas there were many highly able people already campaigning and writing about global poverty, the Vietnam War, and nuclear disarmament, very few thoughtful people were advocating a radical change in the moral status of animals (p. 117-118).

Here's what I'm picking up from Singer: when trying to decide between humanitarian options, urgent causes don't necessarily dominate. I'm also getting this: "giving to the most urgent" ≠ "doing the most good." I think Singer's probably right. So, we should ask ourselves, "Where can I do the most good?" Depending on the circumstances, answering this question will sometimes (often?) lead us to give to the most urgent causes.

Some more thoughts. First, here's what needs to be true in order for this to be right. Suppose that A and B are humanitarian projects one could donate to, with each project attempting to save human lives. If "A is more urgent than B" means that more lives are on the line in the case of A than in the case of B (say, 10 lives on the brink of death vs. 3 lives on the brink of death), then in order for A not to dominate B (in terms of being rational to choose), it needs to be the case that the same investment into A saves less lives than the same investment into B. Imagine you've only got $1000 to donate and your only options are A and B. If investing $1000 into A saves 1 life, while investing $1000 into B saves 2 lives, then, all else being equal, you should donate to B, even though cause A is dealing with a more urgent situation. So yeah, urgency shouldn't swamp other considerations.

However, there are other questions that demand our reflection in order for us to adequately answer question-(2). Here are a few: Which goods/things have priority? Should projects directed toward saving human lives (or alleviating human suffering) always take priority over projects that attempt to save non-human lives like animals? Are the former always more urgent? Do they always dominate? What about the difference between domestic and global needs––the needs of our neighbors vs. the needs of distant strangers? If $1000 saves the lives of 2 of my compatriots, does that outweigh the good that comes from saving the lives of 5 distant strangers for the same amount? Is saving lives all that matters? What about embodying virtue (e.g., kindness toward a loved one, revealed in the act of a nice but unnecessary gift). What about improving quality of life? And so on. Answering the question, "What's the most good you can do," will depend on what we think the good is and what our other responsibilities are. Sorry for pointing out something so trite.
__________________________________________________________________
References:
Peter Singer, The Most Good You Can Do.