I give to charity – but never to people on the street. Is that wrong?

A donor gives 10 percent of their salary to charities judged effective at preventing deaths from poverty, mostly abroad, but feels callous refusing requests for money from unhoused people nearby. The advice reframes this not as a clash between generosity and prudence, but as a conflict between the underlying value of helping and optimization, a strategy that has come to seem like a moral duty. Comparing charities by measurable impact can direct money toward highly effective programs, but it cannot capture every kind of need or benefit. Financial hardship, shame, dignity, depression, and the value of saving or improving lives are not easily translated into a single scale.

The response draws on Jewish teachings that aid should support dignity as well as survival: poor people should have enough to give to others, and those who have fallen from wealth may need help that preserves their sense of self. It also invokes philosopher Bernard Williams’s account of integrity: people have particular commitments, and treating every need as interchangeable can alienate them from the human concerns that motivate their generosity. Rather than dismissing direct giving as irrational or using it merely to earn “warm fuzzies,” the advice is to make room for different forms of help. A practical approach is to carry cash or gift cards for people encountered on the street, give a larger share to reputable local or national charities, and continue supporting highly effective organizations abroad. There is no universal formula for allocating funds; preserving a range of meaningful commitments matters too.