Most charity evaluation measures the wrong thing
Singer's argument answers the whether question. It does not answer the how. Once I accepted that giving substantially was both morally sensible and practically required, I found myself facing a different and considerably harder problem: how do you know whether a charity is actually worth giving to?
My first instinct was to look for external validation. Charity watchdogs exist precisely for this purpose: Charity Commission filings in the UK, Charity Navigator in the US, assorted rating schemes that purport to separate responsible organisations from careless ones. What I found was a methodology built almost entirely on the wrong question.
Why you should consider giving more of your money away effectively and why you should talk about it
In a world where individual choices can have global consequences, how we give matters as much as whether we give at all. Donating to effective charities is not just an act of generosity but a way of directing resources where they can do the most measurable good. Evidence suggests that some organisations achieve far greater impact per pound than others, often by a substantial margin, through a focus on cost-effectiveness, transparency, and rigorous evaluation. This has shaped my own approach: I aim to support causes and organisations where careful analysis suggests that additional funding can meaningfully improve outcomes. Over time, this has led me towards global health, long-term risks, and other areas where the potential impact is especially high. At the same time, I continue to support some causes for personal reasons, even if they are less cost-effective. More broadly, I believe there is value in being open about giving. Talking about it can help normalise thoughtful, impact-driven philanthropy and encourage others to consider not just giving more, but giving more effectively.