[JamesBarney]

Most charities don't have a charity with an exact opposite goal.

Most charitable donations are net good. Sure there exist a small subset of charities that aren't probably doing harm but that's the exception.

Would you argue that charitable giving is neutral or bad?

[emodendroket]

In some light it could be seen as "bad," at least as currently structured in this country: we basically allow people to withhold tax money and instead direct the money as they see fit, which has an anti-democratic implications -- in effect it as though we went to the richest Americans and said "why don't you decide how a substantial chunk of tax dollars are spent rather than Congress?" Beyond the more philosophical aspects, having been in the sausage factory for a bit, and having read about others, I think it is very easy for charities to just happen to serve their mission in a way that just happens to be more beneficial for their patrons (even if they could put superficially convincing numbers on it to prove they're highly "effective").

But I suppose I would say it's neutral; it could be good or bad depending on various characteristics of the charity itself.

[JamesBarney]

I think on avg. charities aren't so bad that the world is better off if you buy a yacht and give 20% to the government than to donate it to the average charity.

But do you at least agree the government does less good with 20 cents than a givewell charity like the AMF does with a dollar?