# On Rational vs Emotional Charity

- id: cmubgbrqt00021psdnsv33xtk
- url: https://wordplaytalk.com/p/cmubgbrqt00021psdnsv33xtk/on-rational-vs-emotional-charity
- kind: idea
- author: Anton Paramonov (@anton144)
- posted: 2026-09-21T16:20:31.157Z
- score: 2 · replies: 2
- format: markdown
- tags: morality, rationality

## Post

This summer I traveled to New York, and what struck me was the pervasive homelessness — dozens of people sleeping in street tents or even on bare asphalt.

Seeing this, I believe every person who is doing good themselves must think about how they could help. But given the scale of the problem, the question quickly transforms into: "Can I help at all? Whatever I do would be a drop in the ocean."

![manhattan_tent](/i/cmubfldk900011psdkbps6zib#w=242)


> _A night tent in the niche of a luxury boutique. So sadly descriptive of Manhattan._

Let us first consult the Bible for an answer.

> ### The Widow's Offering (Mark 12:41–44)
>
> Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
> Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything — all she had to live on."

Jesus clearly teaches that the significance of one's action lies not in its effect on the material world. But isn't something missing here? If a loved one needed an expensive treatment for a serious illness, wouldn't you prefer a large donation from a wealthy person over a few cents from a widow? Isn't it even a bit self-serving of the widow to assume she has done well by her soul, when she has barely helped anyone? This contraversy is what bothers me, and it is what this post is about.

Let us first try to reconcile pragmatic and spiritual reasoning through the categorical imperative:

> "_Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law._"
>
> ### Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

We can apply this idea to our case by saying that even though a single widow's donation is of little practical use, we would wish to live in a world where every individual, no matter how wealthy, does donate; hence the widow's act of donating is morally correct and imperative. But why do we want a world where every widow donates? The implicit logic is that even if a single donation is minute, there are many widows, so the total volume they donate is not negligible — it becomes materially important to society. Unfortunately, statistics — one of the symbols of our rationalist era, and so an adversary of spirituality in the symbolic realm — has something to say against this.

According to statistics on charitable organizations [[1]](https://fundraisingreportcard.com/fundraising-statistics-data-examples/), [[2]](https://institute.blackbaud.com/resources/2025-trends-in-giving), approximately 75% of all donations are below $100, yet these donations contribute less than 7% of the total amount given. In other words, we could hand every widow's coins back to her and little would change at the macro scale — the Kantian approach fails to bridge morality and pragmatism.

Another interesting insight statistics offers is that large and small donors view "doing good" differently. According to the Stanford Social Innovation Review [[3]](https://ssir.org/articles/entry/donor-size-institutional-vs-individual):

> ### Large donors are more focused on health and education while small donors are more focused on human service organizations.
>
> Donor size also seemed to be a strong predictor of _where_ the money goes. Overall, results suggested that institutional donors tended to contribute the largest proportion of funds to education and health nonprofits, while individual donors were most likely to contribute to human service nonprofits (e.g., youth and family services, housing, food pantries, job support, recreation).

I'd place this within a rational-versus-emotional dichotomy. The emotional response is immediate and short-term: if you see an image of a hungry child in Africa, your instinct is to give them food. That's how most donors think, and what most donors consider "good." But if you only give food, the next generation of children will still face famine. You see where this leads.

This brings to mind a controversial remark by Winston Churchill, who accused the people of Bengal of "breeding like rabbits," implying they bore responsibility for the Bengal famine of 1943. At first, this seems extremely cynical, even inhuman. Yet I believe the phrasing stems from how Churchill saw the world, not from a corrupted heart. Why? Because to Churchill, the Bengal famine was nothing more than two numbers: the volume of food supply the UK could provide, and the total population of Bengal. The famine was simply the mismatch between the two. The irritation in the quote, I'd argue, comes from an inability to resolve the catastrophe coupled with an _inclination_ to resolve it.

All in all, on this grand battlefield of emotions and rationality, it's so easy to lose a sense of what "good" even means. For instance, there's a common belief that capital is inherently immoral. Yet Bill Gates spends approximately $24.6 million per day on charity — probably more than most of us will donate in our entire lives. Who, then, is the hypocrite?

## Replies (2)

- **Javier Nieto** (@javi) · score 1 · 2026-09-23T02:15:15.882Z · id: cmudh0gx6006j1onxixzeo07p
  > Great post. This made me think more deeply about something I've circled before.
  > > Isn't it even a bit self-serving of the widow to assume she has done well by her soul, when she has barely helped anyone? [jump to this passage](/p/cmubgbrqt00021psdnsv33xtk/on-rational-vs-emotional-charity#q=Isn't%20it%20even%20a%20bit%20self-serving%20of%20the%20widow%20to%20assume%20she%20has%20done%20well%20by%20her%20soul%2C%20when%20she%20has%20barely%20helped%20anyone%3F)
  > 
  > So, I recycle. It's fallen off recently, but I still ask myself every time I throw something away whether I'm discarding it correctly. If it's paper, I save it as fire starter; if it's a can or plastic, I check whether it can be recycled and clean it out for recycling; if it's a glass jar, I clean it and use it elsewhere. I have a separate bin I must empty and manage. The whole process is annoying, and I remain doubtful whether many of the things I recycle are actually processed appropriately and whether any of this has an effect on anything at all.
  > Even if it did, it "would be a drop in the ocean."[jump to this passage](/p/cmubgbrqt00021psdnsv33xtk/on-rational-vs-emotional-charity#q=would%20be%20a%20drop%20in%20the%20ocean.)
  > 
  > ### So why do it?
  > 
  > Someone may be immediately tempted to ask me how recycling works and what concrete effects it has. They may ask all the right logical and rational questions possible to determine whether or not it has any _use_ at all to society. I almost looked up specifics about recycling while making this reply but had to stop myself. My reasoning does _not_ have to do with any of this. Further, I do not even consider the short-term conscience here. I consider it a discipline in the practice of being considerate in my own actions. With recycling, it is consideration of my consumption, which I think transfers far beyond the recycling itself.
  > 
  > I come from the belief that one's actions are not independent of each other. One happens before the other. Not being charitable today, even if just a few cents, could mean you are not charitable years down the line. It could mean that you are less forgiving overall.
  > 
  > Okay, so we could then ask why not just act rationally within your means? If you have extra resources, then be charitable. Otherwise, don't. That is a discipline in and of itself. And this can be fair. Though, I really wonder if it should be so easy.
  > 
  > I think the separation is whether or not you view charity as strictly a material value for society or also a value for yourself. If the focus is on society, then it makes sense to only give if you are rich. Those are the only ones that really matter at that level. However, I think what Jesus is after is not an economically efficient society, but a society of deep human values. So, viewing charity as a value for yourself _is_ a value to society in the long term. 
  > 
  > I'll put it this way: would we rather have a world of a single charitable rich individual, or one in which a million others join, no matter their economic status?

  - **Anton Paramonov** (@anton144) · score 1 · 2026-09-26T01:17:04.539Z · id: cmuhp96zf00376glak72h0iqu
    > Happy you are to possess such a worldivew, I would say. And I 100% agree that bringing in rationality here indicates misunderstanding of the matter. Yet, I'm lacking other means of convincing. And I do want those who take a fortified position of practical irrelevance of donating/recycling/voting/etc. (these are bare symbols at this point) to be convinced. I want myself to be convinced, as often as posible, since it is a truly pleasant state to be in