Ethics

Is it moral (in a normative sense, I suppose) to start a non-profit that does 'less good' than other non-profits? That is, if your non-profit would facilitate donations to pay for cleft palate surgery for children but could be helping to fight malaria (apparently one the most cost-effect ways to save lives), is that immoral? Isn't your non-profit taking potential donations away from this 'better' non-profit?

Comments

Great question! In some ethical frameworks (such as utilitarianism) there are principles of maximazation principles according to which we are morally obligated to do the most good possible (and the least evil or bad). If you adopt such a framework and have reason to believe that the dental / facial surgery non-profit would result in less than optimal results, then you should not start the alternative non-profit. Many philosophers resist an unqualified maximization principle, however, as it would seem to require virtually constant heroism and self-sacrifice that seems (intuitively anyway) to be "above and beyond the call of duty." Without directly trying to answer your question, I suggest you might consider more categories than moral - immoral. I believe few of us (philosophers or non-philosophers) would ever deem founding the dental non-profit would be immoral. One would be addressing a foundational need and correcting a serious impairment. I also think it is not clear that if pesons support the dental non-profit, there would be less money and less persons available to fight malaria. But let's imagine the situation is as you have described it: if there is such an alternative non-profit then less money would go to fight malaria. In that case, perhaps we should think that while undertaking the alternative non-profit is permissible (after all, it does involve addressing a basic need and so it is not immoral), it is not optimal or the ideal course to take.

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Ethics