Giving to a human related related charity vs animal

13-09-2014 9:20am #1

So I think if you're going to donate to a charity, a human related charity should always come first. I believe that donating to an animal related charity is a bit misguided as I think there is always a more deserving human related one.
(I love animals by the way, especially dogs)

Also I think the answer "people should be able to donate to whomever they want" completely sidesteps the question.

What do you guys think?

*Edit: Well I posted this after coming home from the pub (I'm in a different time zone) and in the cold light of day it's hard to agree with myself. Nobody should be able to judge anyone else based on what charities they give to. I'll leave my post here though because I think some really good points have been made in response to it.

jhegarty · 13-09-2014 9:21am

People should be able to donate to whomever they want.

osarusan · 13-09-2014 9:24am

Sacramento wrote: »

Also I think the answer "people should be able to donate to whomever they want" completely sidesteps the question.

I think it completely answers the question.

stimpson · 13-09-2014 9:25am

Big charity is a scam. Just look at how much the fat cats cream off.

Grayson · 13-09-2014 9:25am

people have weird attitudes towards animals. I read a survey which asked people which they would rescue from a burning building; A beloved family pet or a strangers baby. I can't remember the percentages but i do remember thinking it was a stupid amount that would rescue a pet before a baby.

That even translates to giving to charity. I know people who get worked up and have to change the channel when they see an advert for an animal charity. yet they can watch babies dying in Africa.

We're a funny old species.

13-09-2014 9:25am

jhegarty wrote: »

People should be able to donate to whomever they want.

I guess I should have expected that..

knird evol · 13-09-2014 9:25am

Sacramento wrote: »

So I think if you're going to donate to a charity, a human related charity should always come first. I believe that donating to an animal related charity is a bit misguided as I think there is always a more deserving human related one.
(I love animals by the way, especially dogs)

Also I think the answer "people should be able to donate to whomever they want" completely sidesteps the question.

What do you guys think?

I think primates could qualify for getting maybe half of what humans get. Other mammals 20%. The lower orders of animals then significantly less. I'd be on for giving lizards absolutely nothing.

pharmaton · 13-09-2014 9:29am

I think animal charity orgs are less likely to use donations to buy themselves a villa in marbella.

There would be a few human charitys that I would throw money at if I won the millions though. The rest I'm too sceptical about and would feel like I'm merely contributing to some directors big fat pay check.

the PETA files · 13-09-2014 9:31am

KidsRtheFuture wrote: »

I fill my trocaire box every year. That's all I do, wouldn't give to a peoples charity tbh.

Can you not think of a charity that helps more deserving animals?

wazky · 13-09-2014 9:32am

the PETA files wrote: »

Can you not think of a charity that helps more deserving animals?

I donate to my local hunting club every year?, they keep numbers of sick animals down.

The Backwards Man · 13-09-2014 9:33am

The minute someone tries to coerce or dictate he direction of your donation it's not charitable any more.

ireland.man · 13-09-2014 9:35am

In terms of their ability to feel physical and emotional pain and their cognition, elephants, dolphins and many apes are almost on par with humans. Some scientists even say elephants may actually feel emotions more strongly, and are innately more altruistic than humans. So I don't think it's misguided to give money to reduce suffering for these animals. In fact I think they should be given 'personhood'.

Grayson · 13-09-2014 9:35am

pharmaton wrote: »

I think animal charity orgs are less likely to use donations to buy themselves a villa in marbella.

There would be a few human charitys that I would throw money at if I won the millions though. The rest I'm too sceptical about and would feel like I'm merely contributing to some directors big fat pay check.

It also depends on the human charity. There are some like MSF which do amazing work and deserve every penny they get. the help people in the worst hellholes.

then there are religious charities who use the money to convert (I'm differentiating from religious charities that use the money in disaster zones like the red cross).

One saves lives the other pushed an agenda. I think the Iona institute is a charity and they are very different from the red cross.

The Purveyor of Truth · 13-09-2014 9:38am

I totally agree.

You know what winds me up even more. Women who are into bestiality.

Nothing more annoying than not being able to get laid and then see some Golden Retriever online having a threesome.

imitation · 13-09-2014 9:40am

Why ? Some people out there want to help animals in need, thats fair enough, nobodys stopping you from being an accountant or whatever. So those people need some financial help to do that.

I'd better not give them anything though because of other charities, infact I'd better stop paying sky and the gas bill until world peace has been achieved.

Mrs Garth Brooks · 13-09-2014 9:43am

There was an animal shelter in Manchester that was set on fire on Thursday by a little scumbag. 50 innocent little dogs burned to death.

Defenceless little animals, my heart goes out to them.

I always give to animal charities.

longhalloween · 13-09-2014 9:44am

I was listening to a BBC4 podcast which related the lack of industry in Africa to the amount of aid the country gets.

No point starting an agricultural industry when food is being given out for free by charities funded by us.

ascophere · 13-09-2014 9:46am

ireland.man wrote: »

In terms of their ability to feel physical and emotional pain and their cognition, elephants, dolphins and many apes are almost on par with humans. Some scientists even say elephants may actually feel emotions more strongly, and are innately more altruistic than humans. So I don't think it's misguided to give money to reduce suffering for these animals. In fact I think they should be given 'personhood'.

If you are going to award person-hood to an elephant then what is to happen the next time an elephant tramples someone to death? Should it be arrested and charged with murder? Perhaps a charity to contribute to elephant legal fees is in order.

The Pheasant2 · 13-09-2014 9:48am

Humans will always be fine, animals need protection from us - you have to realise all other animals are just as "relevant" as we are as species. If they're going extinct it's because of our actions destroying their habitats; not their evolutionary faults.

indigo twist · 13-09-2014 9:48am

I think people should be free to donate as and when and to where they wish (if they choose to do so.)

No matter where you donate, someone will always criticise your choice.

I saw a story yesterday about a dog rescue home in the UK which was set on fire and over fifty dogs killed. Local people had pretty much bought the local shops out of dog food, blankets, etc. And there were loads of comments on the story criticising this - saying that, if these people had money to spare, it should have gone to human charities. I thought this was really sad. Feckin hell, loads of those dogs would have had such a tough life already. Even before coming close to death in a fire. And people would begrudge others for providing the necessary emergency supplies to help their recovery?

I bought €15 worth of grocery shopping for a woman on the street yesterday - not something I often do, I can't afford it, but she seemed completely genuine and very grateful - and all she was asking people for was food, not money. (I did throw in a scratchcard for her too, apart from all the food essentials, you never know.) But couldn't you say that I was wrong to do so? Shouldn't I have given the money to the starving children in Africa - while this woman was clearly struggling, she wasn't dying of starvation, at the same time.

Why should people give to charities for the elderly when they could donate to charities for sick babies? Why should people give to charities for sick babies when they could donate to charities for dying children? Why donate to AIDS charities when you could be donating to cancer charities? Why donate to charities that assist cancer victims when you could be donating towards cancer research?

If people want to donate to African babies, animal charities, their local theatre, bagpackers from the local school in the supermarket, hospice foundations, whatever the hell they want to do ... let them at it. It's their own hard-earned money, let them give it to whatever charity they want to, or let them keep it for themselves - no one should feel guilty about it either way.

Personally, if I'm fundraising for anything, I'll do it in aid of LauraLynn Childrens Hospice. I also support the homeless when possible (usually just by buying a sandwich and tea or whatever, sometimes by donating to a relevant charity.) I also will soon be taking part in a programme where I'll be working on literacy skills with children in inner-city Dublin schools - I firmly believe that education and early intervention is key to avoid the next generation of disadvantaged children ending up on the streets.

You could of course find fault with the above - many would consider those on the streets to be there through their own decisions and weaknesses ... I'm just grateful that I'm fortunate never to have been close to that situation. I do believe that your family background has a lot to do with it, and I'm so lucky in that respect. Many never had the opportunities and support that I had while growing up.

As it happens, my chosen charities are human ones - but who's to say that they're the most deserving human ones? We all have our own special interests - if people are interested in helping animals, or supporting the arts, or sport, or whatever, I think they should be commended for doing so. Not made guilty that it's not a worthwhile enough cause. It's all subjective.

pharmaton · 13-09-2014 9:48am

Grayson wrote: »

It also depends on the human charity. There are some like MSF which do amazing work and deserve every penny they get. the help people in the worst hellholes.

then there are religious charities who use the money to convert (I'm differentiating from religious charities that use the money in disaster zones like the red cross).

One saves lives the other pushed an agenda. I think the Iona institute is a charity and they are very different from the red cross.

This really . Id be happy to contribute to doctors without borders. I think the work they do is amazing and yet at the same time I know my own town has spent the last few so years trying to raise cash to fund a new hospice being built on site. Everyday I pass the billboard with the funds marker at just beyond halfway and I imagine having won the few bob required to complete it. That would make me happy.

Pumpkinseeds · 13-09-2014 9:54am

Grayson wrote: »

people have weird attitudes towards animals. I read a survey which asked people which they would rescue from a burning building; A beloved family pet or a strangers baby. I can't remember the percentages but i do remember thinking it was a stupid amount that would rescue a pet before a baby.

That even translates to giving to charity. I know people who get worked up and have to change the channel when they see an advert for an animal charity. yet they can watch babies dying in Africa.

We're a funny old species.

If you want to stop African babies dying, then you need to get rid of the dictators. Billions in Aid have been pumped into African countries for decades and the problems still exist because food, medical supplies and money are being creamed off the top by dictators. Most animal charities in Ireland receive very little to no financial support from the government and depend on fund raising and donations to provide food, shelter and medical treatment for the animals they help.

So essentially, my philosophy is fcuk Africa, I'm giving my donations to Irish animal rescues.

Grayson · 13-09-2014 10:01am

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

If you want to stop African babies dying, then you need to get rid of the dictators. Billions in Aid have been pumped into African countries for decades and the problems still exist because food, medical supplies and money are being creamed off the top by dictators. Most animal charities in Ireland receive very little to no financial support from the government and depend on fund raising and donations to provide food, shelter and medical treatment for the animals they help.

So essentially, my philosophy is fcuk Africa, I'm giving my donations to Irish animal rescues.

If you don't want to give a **** about babies dying, that's up to you. Personally i think it's horrendous.
Yes the problems faced by many african nations go far, far deeper than just food shortages. there's also endemic corruption in some of these places. Humanitarian disasters will still happen unless these problems are addressed. But there is still a need for urgent humanitarian action.

Personally I think there is something seriously wrong with someone who can look at children dying and say "**** Africa".

And before anyone thinks i don't give a **** about animals, I'm a vegetarian. i do care about animals, I just happen to think that a human baby is more important.

anewme · 13-09-2014 10:05am

The fact that in the space of a day and a half, there has been way over 1.2m donated to the Dog's Home in Manchester speaks volumes about how much people love animals and I think it is absolutely fantastic how the people of Manchester and indeed all over UK and the have rallied to help, with offers of homes, food, donations, blankets, big rough tough builders offering to give their time to help rebuild the shelter.

I am very proud to say I sent a small donation and take offence at anyone inferring in any way it is "misguided".

It's not your business to dictate where people spend their money or what causes should be close to their hearts.

ascophere · 13-09-2014 10:07am

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Humans will always be fine, animals need protection from us - you have to realise all other animals are just as "relevant" as we are as species. If they're going extinct it's because of our actions destroying their habitats; not their evolutionary faults.

Humans most definitely are not and historically have not been fine. There is more than enough human suffering that needs charity. I'd prioritize a charity that aided human suffering over an animal one even though I do feel both are noble and worthwhile.

Also 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Most of those occurred before we evolved. The dodo could have done with protecting though, or the cop on to run off and hide instead of getting clubbed to death.

caolfx · 13-09-2014 10:16am

It's a sad, pathetic and if ignorant view, to say the least.

I tend to donate more to animals, but will always dip my hand in my pocket for sick kids erc if I'm passing by.

But I'll go to the effort of going to animal charity website and donating.

Animals need humans and vice versa (to a lesser degree perhaps?). As they're part of the earth we share and as we're the dominant species, they deserve to be respected and treated properly. They deserve to live and thrive as we do. We don't own the planet. The worst part is we think we do.

ireland.man · 13-09-2014 10:19am

Charity should be carefully thought out with the goal to provide the greatest amount of good. A million euros towards malaria drugs for keeping thousands alive in Africa is a better end result than a hundred dogs being kept in more comfortable conditions in the UK, say.

And nothing worse than the saps who misquote the old "charity begins at home" saying, and argue money should only be given to local causes...

anewme · 13-09-2014 10:28am

ireland.man wrote: »

And nothing worse than the saps who misquote the old "charity begins at home" saying, and argue money should only be given to local causes...

You have a cheek calling ANYONE who donates to any charity, be it animal or human a SAP.

The Pheasant2 · 13-09-2014 10:31am

ascophere wrote: »

Humans most definitely are not and historically have not been fine.

Are you kidding me? We couldn't be less threatened as a species. In fact we're actually so successful that we huge overpopulation problem.

Grayson · 13-09-2014 10:34am

SuperOito wrote: »

It's a sad, pathetic and if ignorant view, to say the least.

I tend to donate more to animals, but will always dip my hand in my pocket for sick kids erc if I'm passing by.

But I'll go to the effort of going to animal charity website and donating.

Animals need humans and vice versa (to a lesser degree perhaps?). As they're part of the earth we share and as we're the dominant species, they deserve to be respected and treated properly. They deserve to live and thrive as we do. We don't own the planet. The worst part is we think we do.

that would imply that you are donating to a charity like WWF or greenpeace as opposed to a dog shelter type charity.

I think there's a difference between an an environmental charity which protects habitats and one like a dog shelter which attempts to protect individual animals.

Strangely, I think animal lovers are more likely to care for the advert of the abandoned puppy rather than the one of the amazon being deforested.

TheBeardedLady · 13-09-2014 10:38am

Donate to whoever you like but PLEASE stop posting photos of bloody, legless dogs on Facebook or an elephant who had his trunk ripped off or a cat with worms on its face instead of whiskers or whatever the fook. You're automatically unfollowed if you start doing that. I don't want to see that ****!

BoJack Horseman · 13-09-2014 10:41am

I donate regularly to an animal charity, rarely to a human one.

Some human stuff like drugs/homeless charities will intentionally never receive a cent from me.

ascophere · 13-09-2014 10:43am

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Are you kidding me? We couldn't be less threatened as a species. In fact we're actually so successful that we huge overpopulation problem.

Our dog lays around all day taking it easy. She's well fed and cared for. That doesn't mean dog charities are pointless.

We are equally as threatened as a species as much as dogs and cats are. Just because a species is not on the endangered list doesn't mean a certain percentage of the population of that species isn't experiencing suffering and in need of charity.

When famine, treatable diseases and poverty have been eliminated for all humans then it can probably be said that charity for animals is a more worthwhile cause. Until then I have to say not.

anewme · 13-09-2014 10:45am

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Donate to whoever you like but PLEASE stop posting photos of bloody, legless dogs on Facebook or an elephant who had his trunk ripped off or a cat with worms on its face instead of whiskers or whatever the fook. You're automatically unfollowed if you start doing that. I don't want to see that ****!

Same people put photos of babies with burnt faces, no limbs etc....no need for it.....

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-09-2014 10:47am

What about animal charities that benefit humans like guide dogs for the blind or helper.dogs for autism?

Fwiw make a wish and dogs trust both get an equal monthly donation.

The Pheasant2 · 13-09-2014 10:49am

ascophere wrote: »

Our dog lays around all day taking it easy. She's well fed and cared for. That doesn't mean dog charities are pointless.

I'm not talking about dogs and cats, I'm talking about Giant Pandas, Highland Gorillas, Humpback Whales, Black Rhinos - it's charities that look after these species that get my money, they need the protection most

Pumpkinseeds · 13-09-2014 10:52am

Grayson wrote: »

If you don't want to give a **** about babies dying, that's up to you. Personally i think it's horrendous.
Yes the problems faced by many african nations go far, far deeper than just food shortages. there's also endemic corruption in some of these places. Humanitarian disasters will still happen unless these problems are addressed. But there is still a need for urgent humanitarian action.

Personally I think there is something seriously wrong with someone who can look at children dying and say "**** Africa".

And before anyone thinks i don't give a **** about animals, I'm a vegetarian. i do care about animals, I just happen to think that a human baby is more important.

I take a practical view not an emotional one. There are so many more global issues that could have been solved with the billions pumped into Africa. 50 years from now the same issues will exist in 3rd world countries and the same dictators will be helping themselves to the donations. How much, if any, of your money do you think is actually going to children?

We all give to the charities we want to support. Me not wanting my money to go to a dictator doesn't make me a bad person, I'm vegetarian too, doesn't make me any better than anyone else though.

recylingbin · 13-09-2014 10:58am

I prefer to give to the church and let them decide what group they compensate.

Spudmonkey · 13-09-2014 11:09am

Mrs Garth Brooks wrote: »

There was an animal shelter in Manchester that was set on fire on Thursday by a little scumbag. 50 innocent little dogs burned to death.

Defenceless little animals, my heart goes out to them.

I always give to animal charities.

And that's why I have more empathy for animals than humans

Grayson · 13-09-2014 11:17am

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I take a practical view not an emotional one. There are so many more global issues that could have been solved with the billions pumped into Africa. 50 years from now the same issues will exist in 3rd world countries and the same dictators will be helping themselves to the donations. How much, if any, of your money do you think is actually going to children?

There's a difference between providing money that is used to build a country which is ruled by a dictator and giving money to feed starving children. the people/children who are dying are blameless. They're normally not involved in the politics at all. They are just as much victims as the abandoned puppies.

I think the world can help these countries. On a macro level we can encourage their development and help construct the institutions which enable a democratic society to thrive. It may mean that in 50 years time the country has developed more and doesn't need as much aid.
That's doesn't remove the short term need to address a humanitarian crises. If another mega tsunami hit the far east we'd (us and our government) donate to help the rescue fund, but for some reason people wouldn't help a drought

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm vegetarian too, doesn't make me any better than anyone else though.

I think it makes you better than someone who says they're for animal rights but eats factory farmed chicken. I can't stand inconsistency in morals.

DBB · 13-09-2014 11:43am

I run a dog rehoming charity, a small one, in my own free time.
When it comes to supporting well-run pet animal shelters and rescue groups, it is very easy to forget that it's not just animals that such charities are helping. Each animal they rescue is placed into a home with at least one human being, and in an extraordinary number of cases (in my experience at least), the dog/pet serves an enormously important role for the person or family who adopts them: people with depression, people who have suffered a terrible loss, elderly people, lonely people, socially awkward people, all of whom benefit hugely from having a pet, because it gets them out, gets them up out of bed, gives them something to live for.
It has been said to me on many, many occasions that I (and groups like mine) provide a life-enhancing social service for people, and indeed I spend at least as much of my time, probably more, talking to, supporting, and advising the human end of the dog/human relationship as I do preparing the dogs for rehoming!
So, it's easy to forget that there are two sides to every animal adoption in the case of animal rehoming charities. If it was only all about the animals we'd all go out of business pretty quickly.
Ditto for animal charities that train dogs to assist disabled people, deaf people, blind people, autistic kids, pets that visit people in hospitals, respite units and old folks' homes, dogs trained to detect cancers, diabetic episodes and epileptic seizures... Critical services that not only improve the quality of life for many, but save human lives too.
To cast aspersions on people who support all of the above because it apparently means they value an animal's life more than a human's is to misunderstand the deeper importance pet animals play in human society which is facilitated by such good animal charities.
It's really unfair and misguided to belittle anyone who supports these types of animal charities with the glib accusation that they don't care for their fellow man.

ireland.man · 13-09-2014 11:47am

anewme wrote: »

You have a cheek calling ANYONE who donates to any charity, be it animal or human a SAP.

How do you get so annoyed by imaginary conversations?

I said saps are the ones who criticise people because they gave to charities to help non-Irish people. They don't actually give money to charity or volunteer but will jump to attack anyone who does, like complaining about you ignoring the plight of the homeless Irish people when you mention you volunteer with asylum seekers but in actuality they've never given the former a second thought in their lives! I've experience volunteering with different groups and you'd be surprised how many people will become indignant that you support whatever cause you do, be it animal welfare, overseas development projects or support for disadvantaged students to get into third level, etc.

Shenshen · 13-09-2014 12:59pm

I will give to both human-focused and animal-focused charities, but when I do a fund-raising event I tend to pick animal charities.

Charity is a through and through emotional thing, you give because you feel you need to help, not for any rational reason. And I feel that animals are far, far more vulnerable than people.

Grayson · 13-09-2014 1:05pm

DBB wrote: »

To cast aspersions on people who support all of the above because it apparently means they value an animal's life more than a human's is to misunderstand the deeper importance pet animals play in human society which is facilitated by such good animal charities.
It's really unfair and misguided to belittle anyone who supports these types of animal charities with the glib accusation that they don't care for their fellow man.

there's a difference between someone who gives money to a charity such as yours and a person who says "they'd always give to an animal charity before a human one".
I think when someone refuses to donate to any charity that supports humans it's fair to say they don't care for their fellow man.

Think of it like this. Someone who hires a white person isn't racist. there's absolutely nothing wrong with that
However if someone says they will only ever hire white people, I think we can read something into it.

Midnight Sundance · 13-09-2014 1:10pm

I prefer to give to some of the smaller local charities. In saying that one of the ones I usually give to is an animal one but purely because I've first hand had to deal with them and I know 100% of money goes to animals and not big fat cats.
I'm a bit reluctant to give to bigger ones like concern when I hear how much the people at the top get paid.
I dunno, if I was to do up a tally of human vs animal charity donations, I think I've given more to animals. It's my money and my preference , children's hospitals and cancer research come close afterwards . (I kinda have a little irk about local soccer teams constantly shaking their buckets outside supervalu etc n giving you the dirties for not donating.)

I can't give to them all and I'm choosy about what I do give to and hate being made guilty because I haven't donated to a particular charity .

Grayson · 13-09-2014 1:21pm

Midnight Sundance wrote: »

I prefer to give to some of the smaller local charities. In saying that one of the ones I usually give to is an animal one but purely because I've first hand had to deal with them and I know 100% of money goes to animals and not big fat cats.
I'm a bit reluctant to give to bigger ones like concern when I hear how much the people at the top get paid.
I dunno, if I was to do up a tally of human vs animal charity donations, I think I've given more to animals. It's my money and my preference , children's hospitals and cancer research come close afterwards . (I kinda have a little irk about local soccer teams constantly shaking their buckets outside supervalu etc n giving you the dirties for not donating.)

I can't give to them all and I'm choosy about what I do give to and hate being made guilty because I haven't donated to a particular charity .

I might have been talking about children in Africa and third world countries, but Temple Street is a charity that I always give to. Every time I pass someone collecting for it I dump every penny I have on me in the bucket.
It's ridiculous that in in our first world country we need to give it money.

And ditto on the soccer teams.

DBB · 13-09-2014 1:25pm

Grayson wrote: »

there's a difference between someone who gives money to a charity such as yours and a person who says "they'd always give to an animal charity before a human one".
I think when someone refuses to donate to any charity that supports humans it's fair to say they don't care for their fellow man.

I'm not disputing that, it's a different argument and not one I'm going to get into because, to be honest, I'm of the opinion that what charities people support is their business. At least they're helping somebody or something.
I posted the above in an attempt to give some posters here pause for thought when they accuse others of not caring for their fellow man just because they like to give to animal charities, because there was more than one such post here. I just felt the need to address that by delving a little deeper into a very human side of animal rehoming that many people never think of.

Giving to a human related related charity vs animal

Comments