In his New York Times piece about charitable giving, Peter Singer argues that a person should donate everything that is not completely essential to their existence. If $200 can save the life of a struggling child overseas, then if you have the means, why not donate $1,000 and save the lives of five children? What is stopping tens of thousands of Americans from donating just $200 dollars to UNICEF or Oxfam America? This question has been rattling around in my head since Bernie read Singer's article to our class on Friday morning.
My first thought was that people want to be happy. Giving away $1,000 to charity means that you may not be able to spend as much money on the things that you identify as making you happy. This ideology, while perceivably selfish, is the reason that many Americans choose not to donate even if they have the means to. And to be completely honest, it makes sense. If you do a hard week's work, you will probably want to spend your paycheck on something that will benefit you personally and bring you at least some level of happiness: an expensive dinner, a new pair of shoes, a luxury car, etc. This ideology seemed reasonable enough, but then I thought about a psychological theory called "The Hedonic Treadmill."
The Hedonic Treadmill is basically the idea that we get more satisfaction and pleasure from the anticipation of buying a new material item than we do from actually having it. For example, if you were to save up and buy a new pair of sunglasses that you've been wanting for months, when you actually make the purchase, the satisfaction gained from having them is short-lived and possibly disappointing when compared to the anticipation of the purchase itself. We then attempt to negate this disappointment by selecting a new item of desire only for the cycle to continue, hence the treadmill analogy.
So this raises the question: How much happiness can we really get from spending that hard-earned paycheck on a fancy new pair of shoes?
The answer to this question can be found in numerous studies following the correlation between charitable giving and happiness. These studies show that the more you give, the happier you are and the more fulfilled you feel. MRI technology shows that donating to charity actually causes similar brain activity as eating chocolate or having sex. With this in mind, giving that $200 is actually mutually beneficial both for you and the starving child overseas.
So the next time you go to spend an excessive amount of money on something that you really don't need, ask yourself: Do I want to be happy?
Wow. I thought that this blog post was amazing. Looking at your talk about the "Hedonic Treadmill" really opened my eyes. I have a certain friend in my life who does not use his money very wisely and is a common runner on the treadmill. He seems to always have another thing to purchase in his mind, which makes him happy and excited. Although, when he goes to actually purchase the item, he regrets spending his money and more importantly does not care for the item as much. It is amazing that donation has an impact on psychology. The world would be a happier place if we followed this ideology.
ReplyDelete