It is still clear to me that GiveDirectly, my group’s organization, should be the recipient of our class’ donation. Through the extensive research that my group and I have done, we have discovered how absolutely transparent, effective and efficient GiveDirectly is as a non-profit organization. GiveDirectly impacts so many lives to such a great extent, and has shown over and over again that the method of cash transfers is a successful remedy to extreme poverty. Additionally, outside sources and research on cash transfers have also reiterated the positive effect that it has on communities that are targeted. The families that receive donations through GiveDirectly continue to grow economically as a result of the monetary gifts they receive.

Though our class’ donation may be small, it is necessary that the money goes toward the organization with the greatest overall impact on extreme poverty.  While my group and I initially did not have any personal attachments to the GiveDirectly organization when we decided upon it, I think that this charity has really grown on us. This cause has become very important to me, because I feel that this organization does the most amount of “good” with the funds it receives. I am so glad that we ended up choosing the organization that we did, and I am sure that we can convince the class that it will be a good use of our funds.  This is a cause that should be important to everyone, because it is lending a helping hand to those most in need globally.

On Thursday, I went to a screening of Hidden Figures hosted by UR Common Ground. This group works to promote diversity and inclusion on our campus, and I think that the screening of this movie was a great event for them to host. This movie is based on a true story; the African-American female mathematicians working for NASA that were instrumental in the success of the US during the Space Race of the 1960s. The film pointed out the immense obstacles this group of women had to overcome simply to be able to do their jobs and be taken seriously. The ways in which these women persevered was incredible. They proceeded to thrive in an agency that was dominated by white males.

I think this movie was a great choice to show on this campus because it sparked discussion about race and privilege. Racism is still deeply engrained in American society, and is not as departed from the prejudice and practices that existed in the 1960s. The story of these women is incredibly important to share because of how their names and impact had been virtually overlooked and forgotten about. These women received much less credit than they deserved for the great work they had done for NASA. This movie was a step in the right direction in highlighting the impact of largely silenced and invisible people, many times women and minorities, that often work behind the scenes of great scientific progress.

As time has continued in this project, I continue to support our choice of Partners in Health to receive the donation from Jepson. Using MacAskill’s book to evaluate our charity, I can say that I am very impressed with the effectiveness and transparency of the charity across the board. That is what makes this charity so different from the rest. Based on the material that we have covered for class and our in-class discussions, PIH meets all the needs of requirements of a charity that is most effective. One of the most important things that we have found while researching this charity is its overall transparency on its website, particularly in regards to their allocation of funds and their goal as a company. This transparency allows potential donors to see exactly what kind of charity that they are putting their money into, and how it will be used in the future. The website also does an incredible job of detailing what they have done/plan to do in the future in the countries that they work with, which is also incredibly important because it shows not only how the organization has been successful in their endeavors so far, but their potential to improve.

The research that we have done has only strengthened my belief that PIH is deserving of the Jepson donation. There are multiple reputable websites that only speak highly of PIH as an organization. One of those reputable sources is Charity Navigator which has rated the charity as a 5-star charity. In the area of cost-effectiveness, it is clear that PIH has been successful in dividing their funds. According to Charity Navigator, which has received its information directly from PIH, the company spends 91.5% of their funds directly on their programs expenses, while roughly 3.7% of the funds go to administrative expenses. This is important to note, because it is clear that the organization is dedicated to using their funds to aid people, rather than providing over exorbitant salaries to their workers.

Partners in Health also gives its funds to those who are really in need. It works with providing the poorest of the poor with healthcare opportunities that otherwise would not be available to them. PIH is really involved with improving the overall quality of life of these individuals. Our resources have also provided success stories of the charity in different countries, for example there was an article about the successes of the company in Rwanda and how they have helped to rapidly improve the healthcare system. They have allowed for many of the citizens to be treated and have worked to fight diseases that used to take out large populations in Rwanda, thus allowing them to start researching/treating other diseases that they used to not have time for- for example cancer. There was also an article about a university that PIH has founded that is dedicated to educating those on the issue of health, and using a principle of health equity to work to overcome issues of global health. It is important to see how PIH continues to work to improve the quality of life of the individuals that it works with, and that they are providing not only physical opportunities to better people’s lives, but an educational aspect as well.

It is still difficult to decide whether or not RAINN is the best charity to donate to. According to the Feminist Majority Foundation, Greatist, and GiveWell, RAINN sticks out as one of the highest impact giving opportunities. I feel as though the more research I conduct, the more I find that RAINN is constantly among the top rated abuse and sexual assault related charities. So, I think if we are only evaluating charities on these terms, then RAINN would be worthy of a donation. However when taking into consideration charities of all kinds with the biggest impact, RAINN falls short of organizations that try to combat issues such as Malaria.

I think the most challenging part about deciding whether or not groups are worth donating to is that we are evaluating them based on whether or not they are the best. RAINN is a good organization, but because it’s not as transparent in its financials as other organizations or doesn’t directly give as much of it’s donations to the cause as other groups, it’s not as worthy. I don’t that completely discredits it as a charity though, as it still accomplishes a lot of meaningful work.

In chapter five of Haidt’s The Righteous Mind he defines a second principle of moral psychology: There’s more to morality than harm and fairness. To support this claim he did some research showing that people who grow up on Western, educated, industrial, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies are statistical outliers on many psychological measures. Haidt conducted his research by asking University of Pennsylvania students about their thoughts on the dog and chicken question from the previous chapters, and he found that their responses were the “unusual” ones compared to the working-class individuals that he interviewed outside of McDonald’s. Haidt later stated that it has been shown that this “WEIRD” population is the least representative population you could study if you want to make generalizations about the human population, because “The WEIRDer you are, the more you see a world of separate objects, rather than relationships.”

I found this part about chapter five very interesting because it reminded me of the 2016 election. For most WEIRD people, or at least for me, it seemed as if Hillary would undoubtedly win the election and unfathomable to think of Trump winning. However, in my scope of the world, I was only paying attention to the fellow WEIRD population and following news sources that reported Hillary was the correct candidate. The media and the polls seemed to cover the WEIRD population and the “non-WEIRD” population was not well accounted for. It is clear in this case that the WEIRD population was not representative of the whole United States population, as many people clearly voted for Trump. After the election, I was obviously surprised and it made me realize how little I know about the American people outside of the WEIRD population and the way in which they think. After this chapter and the election, I am realizing how completely different one’s morals can be within the same country.

1. “Partners in Health.” Partners in Health. p., n.d. Web 18 March 2017.

The Partners in Health website has been created by the charity itself for potential donors to be given insight into the charity’s mission, goals, and overall effectiveness across multiple different dimensions. The website has been incredibly helpful for our group in allowing us to really understand what the Partners in Health organization actually is and what it is setting out to accomplish. This website has provided some very beneficial information and will continue to be of use to our group as we continue in the project because it is not only very reliable, but it is very clear to understand.

Our group could use the Partners in Health Website to advocate that the charity is “doing the most good” like we have discussed in class and MacAskill has talked about in his book. The website provides the reader with the clear goals of the organization under a tab on the website title “Our Mission.” On this page, the goals that are outlined are: “to bring the benefits of modern medical science to those most in need of them and to serve as an antidote to despair.” Partners in Health also directly outlines the countries that are receiving funds and the amount of people who are receiving the help that they need. The website is structured very well so that a visitor on the page would be able to search and find exactly what they were looking for, rather than be tricked like many other websites. Thus, we could use this website to show how effective the charity has been with its funds and allocating them to those who need them most.

2. “Partners in Health.” N.p., n.d. Web 18 March 2017.

The Skoll Foundation was founded in 199 by Jeff Skoll in order to help him pursue his vision of a sustainable world with peace and prosperity. The following quote summarizes what the Skoll Foundation is all about, “The Skoll Foundation drives large-scale change by investing in, connecting, and celebrating social entrepreneurs and innovators who help them solve the world’s most pressing problems.” This foundation awarded Partners in Health with their Skoll Award in 2008 due to their goals, impact/ability to change, and their ambition.

This website is helpful for our group because it outlines some more information about PIH that was not on the organization’s website. It also adds credibility to the organization as a whole and gives weight to how successful PIH has been in its endeavors. This source has been around for a while and it has been recognizing different organizations for their ability to impact positive change throughout the world. It also gives more insight into the founder of PIH, his initial goals, and his successes with the organization as far as 2008. It is also important to note that the website has since updated its information on PIH and how the organization has continued to remain effective in the years following being the recipient of the Skoll Award in 2008. We will use this source to demonstrate the effectiveness of the charity and its known ability to have a positive impact on a wide variety of individuals who are in desperate need of aid.

3. Hamblin, James. “The Moral Medical Mission: Partners In Health 25 Years On.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 01 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2017.

This article focuses on how Partners in Health originated and how it has come to be such a success over the years. A main focus of the article was on the direct impact that PIH has had in creating medical centers that have been successfully treating individuals with different types of illnesses. It brings about the fact that PIH has been instrumental in advancing the treatment in many different infectious diseases that used to wipe out entire families in Rwanda, and due to their successes in this area they have been able to focus on the treatment of different types of illnesses. One area they have been able to focus on is the high rate of cancer in Rwanda that often went untreated and is now given a lot more attention.

This article will yet again add to the argument that our group will make about the effectiveness of PIH as a whole. It speaks of the goals of the organization, some of the successes that the organization has seen, and why it has been so successful. We could tie in the base beliefs of the founders that the author addressed throughout the entire article. It allows the reader to see that PIH has been so effective and successful due to the partnerships that it has formed throughout the duration of its existence. This would be very helpful in our paper because it allows us to show a quantifiable success story rather than just refer to statistics and studies on a website.

4. “Rating for Partners In Health.” Charity Navigator. p., n.d. Web 18 March 2017.

This source provides direct statistical evidence that point to the effectiveness of the charity. It helps to show just how transparent this organization is and what leads to their successful allocation of funds.

5. “Dr. Farmer’s Remedy For World Health.” CBS News. CBS Interactive, 04 May 2008. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.

This source will help us to continue to argue just how effective PIH is because it offers an interview with Paul Farmer and shows what steps he has taken to allow PIH to become the global success that it is now. It mentions the emphasis on the goals of the organization and the ability to use community to achieve these goals, rather than trying to solve the world’s problems alone.

6. Kantegwa, Sharon. “New University to Integrate Development into Health Sector.” The New Times Rwanda. p., n.d. Web 18 March 2017.

This article is helpful because it shows that PIH is continuing to advance their ability to make an impact in the world of global health- not just in the world of hospitals and physical health, but also in educating individuals to allow for a world where more people are conscious of how the importance of healthcare.

I found what Haidt was discussing throughout these three chapters to be incredibly interesting and thought provoking. It was helpful when he mentioned famous psychologists such as Piaget and Kohlberg and their different developmental stages. It was interesting to see how a child’s morality is constructed through time and the effect that delays in the different stages can have on their ability to make moral decisions. It resonated with me when Haidt was discussing how a child’s morality is self-constructed due to their experiences with other children. This idea brought me back to my Justice class where we read the novel Just Mercy by Brian Stevenson. In the novel, Stevenson brings up the idea of becoming proximate to a situation in order to be able to better understand it. I think that this is exactly what Haidt is talking about when he talks about morality being self-constructed with experiences- our decision and ability to make moral judgements starts from a young age due to the proximity that we have to certain situations. When we are younger, it is much harder to make moral decisions because we have not been exposed to as many difficult scenarios that require reasoning, however with time and more experiences we are (hopefully) better able to make better decisions. How proximate we are to certain situations will impact our decisions and our ability to empathize with others.

It was also interesting how Haidt spoke about the tendency of individuals to make snap judgements based off of their emotions and then work to defend them. When dealing with moral choices, it is not really about a black and white “truth” because there are so many different versions of the truth and what is seen as “right” by different societies. We as humans often make snap decisions that are rooted in our own interests and beliefs without even thinking about other possibilities, or how others would feel in a given situation. We must work to be more acutely aware of the social reasoning due to choices that individuals make, rather than censuring individuals on their choices. However, at the same time we must also work to be able to make sound judgements and back them up with sound reasoning. That is the ultimate dilemma because as humans we are so inclined to make decisions instantly and then defend them just because we think that we are right. Ultimately, one of our main downfalls as humans is our unfailing ability to succumb to our own stubbornness, rather than working to understand different types of reasoning.

Chapter 11 in Power of Critical Thinking Vaughn discusses morality. He quickly admits that this is a complex and often unexamined aspect of critical thinking. But he goes on to emphasize its importance when writing that we must confront morality everyday. Because of this, I believe this is the most relevant and relatable chapter we have read in PCT. Moral arguments, premises, theories, and statements all help us develop a coherent worldview.

Vaughn’s discussion of a coherent worldview is one of the most important themes of critical thinking. It is our set of beliefs and morals that help form opinions about the world. He writes that is is how we make sense of and understand all types of situations. But is is also important (and difficult) to develop a worldview without biases and contradictions. Vaughn admits that establishing a worldview “is the work of a lifetime, requiring reflection, critical thinking, and (often) personal anguish” (440). This is a lifelong task because it requires us to analyze every claim and point of view.

The Socrates quote Vaughn included made me think further about how realistic moral reasoning is. Socrates says, “A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true” (423). The idea of emotions and morality being different for everyone makes it practically impossible to agree upon. What appears moral in one culture or country can be completely immoral in another. The relative nature of this topic plays a significant role in why it is so complex.

As an Economics concentration, I was very excited for us to discuss Game Theory. What was even more compelling for me was the practicality of Game Theory which Fisher explains in Rock, Paper, Scissors. Ultimately, Fisher seeks to explain various social dilemmas using Game Theory and in the subsequent chapters, he makes an attempt to challenge many of the dilemmas posed in the various games. The various social dilemmas are the result of lack of cooperation and trust among the participants. One of the essential components of the games is the existence of only two players who have zero information about the intent of the other player.

Through the simplistic example of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Fisher is able to portray the added complexity of adding a third participant in a game. By adding a third player, the dilemma that the game poses is completely changed; “the introduction of a third player totally changes the nature of the game.”. What I find most interesting about this introduction is the shift from a targeted strategy of the players to a completely randomized approach as in Rock,  Paper, Scissors. The social dilemmas, much like many other economic principles are based upon a series of assumptions which are believed to be true in theory but are not always true in practice. His focus on communication and trust in Chapter 5 are key components which would minimize social dilemmas. However, as he discusses near the end, communication is not always accurate and people are not always rational decision makers which reinforces the necessity of individuals to act in their own best interest.

After looking more extensively into GiveDirectly, I have found barely any areas that stick out as a red flag. Research indicates that there are skeptics mulling over the fact that GiveDirectly is nothing more than an experiment and not a charity and therefore should be treated as such. Supporters of the organization respond by saying it is a vastly successful experiment and checks the boxes of both the test of time and actual tangible influences in the lives of those who benefit. Another potential issue that is tied into the fact that GiveDirectly is actually an experiment is the question of longevity. A cash supplement boost can and does have an immediate effect, as the website boasts with pride. However, the issue of what happens in the long term in a place that receives cash benefits is still not definite. The organization was founded in 2008 and has less than a decade of proof of success to rely on. But, the counter to this point is the project GiveDirectly announced in April 2016, detailing a $30 million initiative to test universal basic income in certain areas of East Africa in an attempt to create a permanent solution and end poverty in highly affected areas for good.

However, in terms of our class considering where our donation will create the greatest benefit, a long term scenario contains very little importance. With the amount and time frame that we have, an immediate cash payment (or one that can be traced throughout the course of a year) not only creates potentially the highest aggregate benefit for each dollar we donate but also most likely provides us, as a class, with the most tangible donation method possible. With the system GiveDirectly uses, we can track where our money is going and can eventually hear back about the individuals and community the money is affecting. With this method, even if you believe people only make donations to feel better internally, you are still creating the greatest good possible. The easier it is to see the influence your donation has, the more you feel the money you gave has an actual tangible affect. Therefore, you are creating the greatest good not only for those receiving the money, but for those donating it as well. As of now, I still fully believe that GiveDirectly deserves our classroom donation.