Is Private Giving a Mere "Band-Aid"?

A common objection to private charitable giving is that it’s a “mere Band-Aid.” By transferring resources to those in need, giving simply addresses the symptoms, rather than the causes, of poverty.

This is a bad objection to giving, though. First, there’s a reason that Band-Aids exist—sometimes you should treat the symptoms of a problem. Suppose an athlete tears their ACL. They should immediately use ice and Advil to treat the symptoms of the injury. Of course, Advil isn’t a replacement for fixing the injury with surgery, but that’s no reason not to take it. Similarly, charitable giving isn’t a replacement for institutional reform, but that’s no reason not to give.

Second, I’ve noticed that the “mere Band-Aid” objection gets applied selectively. For instance, critics of effective altruism sometimes object to private giving on the grounds that it’s no substitute for increased government spending. However, in many cases, one could argue that government spending is itself a “mere Band-Aid.” A free school lunch program, like private giving, provides resources directly to those in need. Both address the symptoms, rather than the causes, of poverty, and both are worthwhile.

Lastly, consider that the claim that the state as an institution does more good than charity as an institution is consistent with the claim that the marginal individual does more good by donating to charity than by attempting to improve the state. (Whether the state as an institution does, in fact, do more good than charity as an institution is a question I’ll set aside.) The marginal individual’s attempt to improve the state is extremely unlikely to make a difference to anyone’s life. So when someone gives to charity, they need not be ignoring the need for institutional reform—rather, they may simply be distinguishing between what they can change for the better (the condition of particular people) and what they can’t (national-scale institutions).