Which is the better cause?

[Gary Childress]

I logged into Amazon.com today and was presented with an interesting sort of moral dilemma. Amazon will apparently now donate a portion of the proceeds from the shopping I do to a charitable organization of my choosing and at no additional cost to me. I tabbed through the list of available organizations to donate to and came up with two that I am actually rather equally interested in. However, I can apparently only choose one (although I can change my choice at any time, maybe even alternate back and forth equally if I put in the extra effort). The two organizations I find myself sort of vexed on are:

1. The Nature Conservancy
2. The American Red Cross

Momentarily putting aside certain other considerations such as which charity might be more efficient in addressing its respective cause or whatever, which charity should (or perhaps ought) I be more concerned with? Should/ought I to be more concerned about the plight of our seemingly dying planetary eco systems or should/ought I to be more concerned about the plight of fellow human beings who may be in dire straits? The third choice would be to skip the procedure and go straight to the shopping without donating to either. However, if it’s no cost to me then that sort of seems like a “hands down” immoral decision to make on the face of it. I could alternate equally between the two but let's face it, once I choose one I'm probably not going to bother going back at a later date and alternate. The setting I choose will probably be for the duration. So for the purposes of a thought experiment I’m just going to present this as an either/or decision.

As an either/or decision, it’s not an easy one for me and it makes me sort of curious what the decision of other people here on the PN forum might be given a similar choice. The range of choices in this instance would seem to be:

1. Save our languishing environment
2. Save some fellow humans from significant discomfort or need
3. Ignore both and just shop

[Note: consider that choosing to help human beings versus help the environment may sometimes even be at odds with each other. For example in some cases saving an endangered species might involve causing significant discomfort to a small number of human beings or vice versa, saving a relatively small group of human beings from significant discomfort might involve causing significant harm to the environment. Theoretically we humans might even be able to pave over the entire planet and still produce the oxygen, food and water we need synthetically or whatever. Do ecosystems and other species perhaps have value in and of themselves independently of whatever utility we humans may derive from them?]

Assuming both charities are equally efficient at representing their respective causes, which is the better cause, save the environment or save even a relatively few human beings from significant discomfort or need (but NOT necessarily death)?

[Impenitent]

have amazon do your charity for you... how generous

want to contribute? donate blood to red cross - they need blood worse than money

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

have amazon do your charity for you... how generous

want to contribute? donate blood to red cross - they need blood worse than money

-Imp

Do you donate blood to the Red Cross?

[Dalek Prime]

I doubt the donation from Amazon.com is at no cost to the shopper. Costs are always built into the price. And corporate governance dictates one must get the biggest return for shareholders. It's the law.

You want to support a cause? Donate directly and take credit for doing so. But don't let some big corporation take credit for it with your money. It's just a PR ploy.

[Gary Childress]

I doubt the donation from Amazon.com is at no cost to the shopper. Costs are always built into the price. And corporate governance dictates one must get the biggest return for shareholders. It's the law.

No doubt true. But it's still an interesting dilemma to me; people vs the planet.

[Dalek Prime]

I doubt the donation from Amazon.com is at no cost to the shopper. Costs are always built into the price. And corporate governance dictates one must get the biggest return for shareholders. It's the law.

No doubt true. But it's still an interesting dilemma to me; people vs the planet.

No planet, no people. Hardly a dilemma.

[Walker]

I doubt the donation from Amazon.com is at no cost to the shopper. Costs are always built into the price. And corporate governance dictates one must get the biggest return for shareholders. It's the law.

No doubt true. But it's still an interesting dilemma to me; people vs the planet.

No planet, no people. Hardly a dilemma.

The planet will do just fine.

When each person clears their own walkway, each person will do just fine.

[Dalek Prime]

The planet will do just fine.

When each person clears their own walkway, each person will do just fine.

People will do just fine too. There are more where they came from. But yeah, clear the walkway, for crying out loud.

[Impenitent]

have amazon do your charity for you... how generous

want to contribute? donate blood to red cross - they need blood worse than money

-Imp

Do you donate blood to the Red Cross?

every 4-6 months

O+, have donated for years

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

have amazon do your charity for you... how generous

want to contribute? donate blood to red cross - they need blood worse than money

-Imp

Do you donate blood to the Red Cross?

every 4-6 months

O+, have donated for years

-Imp

I was a relatively regular donor (every couple months or whatever the minimal turnaround time was) for about 3-4 years a while back. But I've since gotten a bit more squeamish for whatever reason and haven't donated in a few years.

So going back to the point, which do you think is the better choice, given a hypothetical either/or situation? Environmentalism or something like the Red Cross?