Switching charities

[yasic]

Lets say your waiting for your friend at a restaurant and a man passes by you and places a 10 dollar bill into a jar designated for a certain charity. You know for a fact that the charity the jar is made out to is a charity which operates very immorally in that the majority of the money does not go to the victims but the rich owners of the said charity.

Assuming nobody (including electronic devices) are around, would it be ethically moral or immoral to take the 10 dollars out of this jar, and anonymously donate it to another charity who operates on a more charitable basis?

 

[morningstar2651]

Lets say your waiting for your friend at a restaurant and a man passes by you and places a 10 dollar bill into a jar designated for a certain charity. You know for a fact that the charity the jar is made out to is a charity which operates very immorally in that the majority of the money does not go to the victims but the rich owners of the said charity.

Assuming nobody (including electronic devices) are around, would it be ethically moral or immoral to take the 10 dollars out of this jar, and anonymously donate it to another charity who operates on a more charitable basis?

Why act differently in front of people?

 

[Axioma]

Because they would not know that you're taking the money to put in a different charity, rather than simply pocketing it?

 

[morningstar2651]

I wouldn't touch the money - it's not mine to decide what to do with.

I would, however, inform the restaurant that the charity is bad and recommend a better one if I know of one.

 

[Atheian Libertarist]

seriously is this a real question? It is not your money, you do not have the ability to judge where it should go, leave it the hell alone.

If you were given $100 by your grandfather, and someone saw this, and decided to take it to give to a homeless man, because he needed it more, is that right? HELL NO. Period.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I wouldn't touch the money - it's not mine to decide what to do with.

I would, however, inform the restaurant that the charity is bad and recommend a better one if I know of one.

Same here,But if someone saw me put money in a chartiy boxs that pockets most of the money I would like to know so I never make that mistake again.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Lets say your waiting for your friend at a restaurant and a man passes by you and places a 10 dollar bill into a jar designated for a certain charity. You know for a fact that the charity the jar is made out to is a charity which operates very immorally in that the majority of the money does not go to the victims but the rich owners of the said charity.

I'd tell him the charity that he's about to donate to sucks, and why.

Assuming nobody (including electronic devices) are around, would it be ethically moral or immoral to take the 10 dollars out of this jar, and anonymously donate it to another charity who operates on a more charitable basis?

If I told the guy what I knew about the charity and he still decided to donate to it, I'd leave his money where he put it. If the other charity is that much better than the one he chose, I'd put 10 dollars in it on my own. Who am I to take the moral high ground on charity decisions if I'm not willing to put my own money up as well?

*

 

[lawtonfogle]

I would inform him of this. And the restaurant owner. But maybe he did want to donate to this charity. Maybe in a time of need, it was this charity which helped him.

 

[yasic]

I do agree that the money should go where the man wants it to go. While it certainly is possible the man has a connection to the charity in question, chances are he was just being generous and wanted to cause good to society.

Since his desire is most likely to cause the greatest good, by replacing the charities for him, you are doing what he really would want to do rather than simply what you would want to do.

For the sake of this question, assume that the man already left and you cannot track him.

 

[b&wpac4]

I do agree that the money should go where the man wants it to go. While it certainly is possible the man has a connection to the charity in question, chances are he was just being generous and wanted to cause good to society.

Since his desire is most likely to cause the greatest good, by replacing the charities for him, you are doing what he really would want to do rather than simply what you would want to do.

For the sake of this question, assume that the man already left and you cannot track him.

It isn't your money, you cannot decide where it goes anymore than you can decide that his decision to buy a car to your dislike means you have the right to replace it with a car more in your liking.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I do agree that the money should go where the man wants it to go. While it certainly is possible the man has a connection to the charity in question, chances are he was just being generous and wanted to cause good to society.

Since his desire is most likely to cause the greatest good, by replacing the charities for him, you are doing what he really would want to do rather than simply what you would want to do.

For the sake of this question, assume that the man already left and you cannot track him.

If that was the case, I would probably put in 10 of my own to the other one, and if that first charity was really bad, I would put in on my things to destroy list.

Speaking of which, I should actually start up that list, I have a few things already to put on it.

 

[elliotps932]

Lets say your waiting for your friend at a restaurant and a man passes by you and places a 10 dollar bill into a jar designated for a certain charity. You know for a fact that the charity the jar is made out to is a charity which operates very immorally in that the majority of the money does not go to the victims but the rich owners of the said charity.

Assuming nobody (including electronic devices) are around, would it be ethically moral or immoral to take the 10 dollars out of this jar, and anonymously donate it to another charity who operates on a more charitable basis?

I see no problem with that, just as long as you don't take the money for yourself.

 

[moonkitty]

I do agree that the money should go where the man wants it to go. While it certainly is possible the man has a connection to the charity in question, chances are he was just being generous and wanted to cause good to society.

Since his desire is most likely to cause the greatest good, by replacing the charities for him, you are doing what he really would want to do rather than simply what you would want to do.

For the sake of this question, assume that the man already left and you cannot track him.

There is no way you can prove that this was his desire.

Plus once the money left his hands and went into the charity box, it is no longer his money or your money--it is now the money of the charity. To steal from them make you worse than they are. They may not be upfront about how much money they actually use to help people, but at least they are not stealing money from you on the (posibility false) assumption that you have a desire to do good.

 

[yasic]

There is no way you can prove that this was his desire.

No there is no way for you to certainly know this, but you do have enough reason to suspect it to a very high degree.

You do not always need 100% information to act.

Plus once the money left his hands and went into the charity box, it is no longer his money or your money--it is now the money of the charity. To steal from them make you worse than they are. They may not be upfront about how much money they actually use to help people, but at least they are not stealing money from you on the (posibility false) assumption that you have a desire to do good.

Firstly, I would argue that the charity is indeed stealing money, not from me but from the victims of the charity- That is that when the man gave the money, his intention was to give it to the victims, not the charity owner; thus by pocketing a large percentage of this cash, the charity is stealing money from the victims.

As such, I simply would like to ensure that the cash goes to its designated and intended location rather to the theft of one.

Also, you said that once the money is in the jar it now belongs to the charity. What if you did manage to catch the man and he agreed that there are better charities, would you then say he cannot remove his own 10 dollar and place it in another one? If he can actually do so, then the money does not instantly belong to the charity once it is placed in?

 

[b&wpac4]

Also, you said that once the money is in the jar it now belongs to the charity. What if you did manage to catch the man and he agreed that there are better charities, would you then say he cannot remove his own 10 dollar and place it in another one? If he can actually do so, then the money does not instantly belong to the charity once it is placed in?

Bet if a police officer saw him remove the money, he'd be arrested for theft. So, I would say he could not remove the money he put in.

 

[moonkitty]

No there is no way for you to certainly know this, but you do have enough reason to suspect it to a very high degree.

You do not always need 100% information to act.

No, one doesn't need to know 100% of information--in dire circumstance one should act. But I dare say 10$ going to bad charity as dire circumstances.

Firstly, I would argue that the charity is indeed stealing money, not from me but from the victims of the charity- That is that when the man gave the money, his intention was to give it to the victims, not the charity owner; thus by pocketing a large percentage of this cash, the charity is stealing money from the victims.

As such, I simply would like to ensure that the cash goes to its designated and intended location rather to the theft of one.

Then if it bothers somone so much then they should find a way to expose said charity as fraud. That would be more productive than going around and emptying thier chairity boxes. Someone stealing from them still makes that person a theift.

Also, you said that once the money is in the jar it now belongs to the charity. What if you did manage to catch the man and he agreed that there are better charities, would you then say he cannot remove his own 10 dollar and place it in another one? If he can actually do so, then the money does not instantly belong to the charity once it is placed in?

Then it would be that man's descision to go back and take the money out of the box, not mine. If I had put $10 into a charity box, and then directly after found out that they were not upfront--then I would proablly shurg it off and not put any more money in the box. But I doubt that I would take out the money I had already put in.

 

[CF Searcher]

Aren't all charities the same? I mean, 80% of what you donate just goes to paying office workers who spend all day soliciting for more money.

 

[morningstar2651]

Aren't all charities the same? I mean, 80% of what you donate just goes to paying office workers who spend all day soliciting for more money.

Nope. Some don't even lay hands on your money. For example, Child's play charity simply lists what requests hospitals have and you purchase what they requested and it is shipped directly to them.