> You just need to find a destination for your donation.
The effective altruism counterpoint is that the same £400 is just about the amount necessary to save a life from malaria or schistosomiasis. Usually a child. The last number I saw was that ~$800 to one of GiveWell's top charities can be expected to save a life.
The "how to make global donations" problem is hard, but it's important, and we're fortunate that great work and research has been done. Let's use it to put our charitable donations to their best use!
The choices between putting a roof over a family in The Philippines and saving a child from malaria in Myanmar is an impossible one. Information can't solve it.
I have nothing against Give Well's approach. I think it is important. I'm just making the point that at a personal choice level, the "problem" is a lot more solvable. You only need to know about one charity, really.
It's possible that I don't understand your response, because I don't see why one only needs to know about one charity. On reflection, I don't think that it is an impossible problem either. It's making uncomfortable tradeoffs - which stopped me from considering this sort of question for a long time - but I've come to believe that these questions are too important to flinch away from.
One thought experiment to consider: suppose the homeless family themselves had to choose between a free wooden house or lifesaving medical care for their child. What would most families choose? What would you choose in their place? Is there a right answer?
The effective altruism counterpoint is that the same £400 is just about the amount necessary to save a life from malaria or schistosomiasis. Usually a child. The last number I saw was that ~$800 to one of GiveWell's top charities can be expected to save a life.
The "how to make global donations" problem is hard, but it's important, and we're fortunate that great work and research has been done. Let's use it to put our charitable donations to their best use!