[woodruffw]

Also no. I don’t know where you’re getting that.

There are good charities, and there are bad charities. One of the things that can make a charity bad is having a bad mission. Another thing that can make a charity bad is being corrupt or inefficient. But I don’t presume to order charities based on how bad or good they are, and I don’t think there’s anything particularly good about giving to one good charity versus another good charity.

Also, “insensible” does not mean “insane.” I meant that it does not make sense, in my moral system.

[JamesBarney]

So you're happen to separate charities into "good" and "bad" but wouldn't be ok breaking them down into "bad" "ok" "good" or "bad" "good" better?

You're happy to assign a number of 1 or 0, but would never want to rank them any more than that? That doesn't make sense to me.

[woodruffw]

I'm perfectly happy to establish my own preferences: I tend to donate to journalistic and legal aid nonprofits. That's what I prefer, but I don't operate under the belief that I prefer those things because they're better, morally speaking, than donating to famine relief or animal care nonprofits.

There are lots of ethical theories (a majority, in fact!) that don't require (but may admit) grading actions on a sliding scale from "morally worst" to "morally best." Moral systems all boil down to a Theory of Right, and it's possible to have a Theory of Right rooted in virtue or autonomy rather than Good (i.e., greatest consequence).