Don't we need some sort of agreed social norm by which to gauge and perhaps adjust our individual and very unreliable whims? — Tim3003

I don't think we do. Personally, I'd want less social norm, not more.

From an idealistic viewpoint I think, the appropriate question is not "How much do I give?" but "How much do I need"?
Then proceed to give away everything you don't need - because why would you keep it if you don't need it?

But that's just an idealistic worldview. Realistically, no one does give away everything. Realistically people like possessions and like to have a reserve.

From an idealistic viewpoint I think, the appropriate question is not "How much do I give?" but "How much do I need"? — Hermeticus

Well that's never going to work: define 'need'.

Do you 'need' your mobile phone? I'd say 'no'. You might say 'yes'. All you 'need' is oxygen, food, warmth, shelter and human contact. Following that ideal we'd all follow St Francis..

I recently came across a book called Moral Uncertainty. It provides a framework for making ethical decisions in the face of uncertainty. Basically, the authors argue that one should treat empirical and normative uncertainty analogously. In making moral decisions one should maximise expected choiceworthiness.

The book contains an example of the leader of a major philanthropic organisation deciding to allocate $10 million of her resources. She is deciding between the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF), which improves the quality of life of the extreme poor, and supporting cage-free egg campaigns. She makes the initial assessments of the value provided by each of the options, but she is also uncertain whether there is value to ensuring that chickens live in a cage-free environment.

After doing some math, the authors argue that instead of donating all the money to the AMF straight away, it is more choiceworthy to allocate up to $2.7 million to study animal ethics, if that helps her resolve the uncertainty about chickens. In other words, she should be willing to spend $2.7 million in order to find out how to spend the remaining $7.3 million.

The authors admit that the example is highly idealised—in reality the number would be smaller since complete certainty is impossible to reach—but they emphasise that dedicating resources into studying ethics is a good way for us to resolve uncertainty and to maximise the moral value of our decisions. Overall, I liked the ideas presented in the book, even though I skipped a lot of chapters because I found them boring.

In summary, the most moral thing that you can do is to invest your time into studying ethics and forming your own opinion about how much to donate and to which charity. Congratulations, you've already made the first step!

But why do you care to donate? To seem moral? Doesn't sound very moral at all

Well that's never going to work: define 'need'.

Do you 'need' your mobile phone? I'd say 'no'. You might say 'yes'. All you 'need' is oxygen, food, warmth, shelter and human contact. Following that ideal we'd all follow St Francis.. — Tim3003

I mean "need" exactly as you understand it. Necessities of life which without, you would die. But again; this is just one of many moral ideals. It's not realistic, I know that as well as you do.

Here's the three vital points I see to this debate:
Morals are individual and differ from person to person.
Charity as a moral principle quickly undermines the moral act in itself.
Social norms for charity as a moral principle is impossible due to the different ideas and interpretations about morals.

one-size-fits-all — Tim3003

That would be our ol' friend fraction/percentage .

Tithe or $\frac{1}{10} = 10 \%$. The same portion of what you have is given, but the actual amount will differ, sometimes greatly (do the math).

The big question is why one-tenth? There's one-ninth, one-eleventh, so on and so forth. I suppose a tenth of the food (tithe was an agricultural concept) is usually wasted, both externally (thrown) and internally (we can absorb only 90% of the nutrients in our gut). I dunno!

A part of your money you already give away when you get it: tax. When one has a lot of money, it's easier to be charitable, but oddly enough it are the poor who seem to be more charitable. Seem, cause you won't know till they have it.

Some people like possessions, other peoples don't. Some give it away easily, others keep their wallet tightly closed, with both hands wrapped around it, always looking around and alert towards powers trying to take their possessions. No one is obligated to give money or good away. You could force them by law though.

But why do you care to donate? To seem moral? Doesn't sound very moral at all — InvoluntaryDecorum

It's called 'compassion'; a well-known human emotion - maybe it's a sort of altruism, which evolutionary theory will tell you is a vital building block of advanced societies.

1) Morals are individual and differ from person to person.
2) Charity as a moral principle quickly undermines the moral act in itself.
3) Social norms for charity as a moral principle is impossible due to the different ideas and interpretations about morals. — Hermeticus

1)Really? Do we not all agree - or more to the point 'feel' that we have a responsibility to act in the face of poverty, mistreatment, disability - ie to help those less fortunate than ourselves?

2) Why? Because anyone giving must be doing it to seem charitable, rather than because they are? Surely it's the act that counts; not how it 'seems'. Do you believe Bill Gates is just donating billions to 'seem' like a good fellow?

3) See 1). As we differ over morals, you could say any attempt to codify law is impossible - you could say murder cannot be penalised because some think it deserves the death penalty, some prison, some community service.. Society has to agree a compromise acceptable to voters. Maybe the same is possible for charitable donations?

Don't kid yourself, why do you care? To improve society as to better facilitate your needs? This would be a quite ineffective method

I generally give ten percent. And yes, it is important to research where you are sending your money to ensure you are not giving to an admin heavy, bloated organisation. Philosopher Peter Singer wrote a decent book on this called The Life You Save.

It's called 'compassion'; a well-known human emotion - maybe it's a sort of altruism, which evolutionary theory will tell you is a vital building block of advanced societies. — Tim3003

Does "evolutionary theory" tell us a moral tale? Evolution just took place. Is compassion a "building block" of an "advanced" society? Seems to me that the advantage of one people is the disadvantage for others so how you determine which is the right moral? By reference to evolution theory, like the holy bible teaches the morals as intended by the creator?

Giving to others should feel good because it IS good. Give what feels good to you to organizations doing work that makes you feel good (assuming that isn't the local Nazis) and that you can observe (if you want to).

Does PayPal let you designate the charity? (If not, forget it.). Amazon has a program where they donate a small percentage of your purchases to a charity of your choice. I designated "Resist!"-- a very small social/political action group in Cambridge, MA. Some others have selected that group as well, and they receive something like a $1000 a year from our various purchases at Amazon. There is a long list of organizations you can choose from. [I think the name of the Amazon program is "Smile").

If PayPal is interested in charity, they can start by donating 1 - 10 % of their ample profits to charity. Target, for instance, donates 5% of operating profits -- millions - to charities.

As to how much you should give to any and all charities, from the beggar on the corner to the Red Cross, that's up to you. If and when I donate a significant sum to charity (say, $50) I prefer to give it an organization that is local and whose efforts I can observe, like particular food shelves, shelters, or subversive organizations (of which there are damned few).

If I give a beggar a dollar, I don't worry about whether or not they are going to buy alcohol or drugs with it. Begging seems like a hard way to earn a living. There has to be something wrong with a person who is willing to stand by a freeway exit for hours on end in heat and cold, being ignored much of the time (or jeered at), to collect money. They probably need the help.

If I give a beggar a dollar, I don't worry about whether or not they are going to buy alcohol or drugs with it. Begging seems like a hard way to earn a living. There has to be something wrong with a person who is willing to stand by a freeway exit for hours on end in heat and cold, being ignored much of the time (or jeered at), to collect money. — Bitter Crank

Exactly right!

1)Really? Do we not all agree - or more to the point 'feel' that we have a responsibility to act in the face of poverty, mistreatment, disability - ie to help those less fortunate than ourselves? — Tim3003

No, I don't think we agree. I think the ideal to make the world a better place is a bittersweet pill. I believe we need to differentiate between supporting those in need, which is certainly noble and wise, and between making others do certain things or act in certain ways. Because the later will always result in problems. In fact, every serious crime against a human being that is set in law could essentially be summed up to "doing something to or making an individual do something they do not want".

I think the most important responsibility in life is to tend to ourselves. And if we do so in a sensible way, we'll nourish our environment just as well. If there is a way to "save the world", I could only imagine it to be tending to the ones closest to us in a loving and caring manner. You can't bring any joy to the world by telling people what to do or what not do. But smiles and laughter are infectious. So we should perhaps take inspiration from good ol' Covid and start by infecting all those around us.

2) Why? Because anyone giving must be doing it to seem charitable, rather than because they are? — Tim3003

No. But that's not what I said.

Surely it's the act that counts; not how it 'seems'. — Tim3003

Yes. But what makes the act count? I mean most states have a social system, which is funded by the money produced from taxes off the people. Is that not charity?

I don't think giving away money could ever solve the problem. Sure, I regularly donate to the beggars in front of my local supermarkets - but there's someone freezing out front not just at my local markets but all across the nation. And not just across the nation but across the globe. This is a structural problem. It's not solved by money, it's caused by money. Bill Gates does a lot of good things. But Bill Gates also pays less taxes by donating to his own foundations.

3) See 1). As we differ over morals, you could say any attempt to codify law is impossible - you could say murder cannot be penalised because some think it deserves the death penalty, some prison, some community service.. Society has to agree a compromise acceptable to voters. Maybe the same is possible for charitable donations? — Tim3003

Personally, I have a problem with a great majority of the laws that are codified as is. Our law books are ridiculous abominations from a history of laws that in large parts were equally as ridiculous. I don't think our society needs more of those rules and obligations.

As I said, I don't think money is a solution to the problems of the world. And I count these monetary charitable donations among those things. No sum of money will fix anything if humanity doesn't change it's mindset.

Does "evolutionary theory" tell us a moral tale? Evolution just took place. Is compassion a "building block" of an "advanced" society? Seems to me that the advantage of one people is the disadvantage for others so how you determine which is the right moral? By reference to evolution theory, like the holy bible teaches the morals as intended by the creator? — HKpinsky

Compassion is what stops you letting your child stay outside in the cold or go without food although you yourself thus cant afford to eat. Without help from the stronger members of a tribe the weaker ones might starve in times of scarcity - not good for the tribe's long-term prospects.

If I send money to those starving in Yemen, am I disadvantaging my tribe as much as I'm helping theirs?

Don't kid yourself, why do you care? To improve society as to better facilitate your needs? This would be a quite ineffective method — InvoluntaryDecorum

Very cynical. I'm secure, my needs are all met. Any charitable donation I make is solely to help those in need; done because I feel that as a comfortably well-off member of a rich country I ought to help those less fortunate. Unless you're racist, compassion extends beyond your own tribe - even beyond your own species..

Yes. But what makes the act count? I mean most states have a social system, which is funded by the money produced from taxes off the people. Is that not charity? — Hermeticus

No. Because you have no choice but to pay it. Charity is given solely at your own discretion.

Charity as a moral principle quickly undermines the moral act in itself. — Hermeticus

Why? Because anyone giving must be doing it to seem charitable, rather than because they are? — Tim3003

No. But that's not what I said. — Hermeticus

So what did you mean here?

No. Because you have no choice but to pay it. Charity is given solely at your own discretion. — Tim3003

And you don't see the similarity between that and introducing any form of social norm pertaining to when, how much and how often we should donate?

So what did you mean here? — Tim3003

Charity as a moral principle, as something that is spoken or unspokenly demanded by humans partaking in society. If you make it a rule, it no longer is at "your own discretion". Even if it isn't a law - there is very much such a thing as social pressure.

I think there's a clear difference between a social convention (I think 'norm' is too strong a word here) for giving to charity, and the rules of law. Perhaps the only solution is an anonymous poll where people say how much they give as a % of earnings so we can see the average and decide our own position relative to it.
(Although I suspect many people wouldnt fill in the form as they'd be embarassed about not admitting they don't give anything.)