In Vernon, Ontario, two teenagers camped behind a grocery store. When onlooker Tami sought to help, the boys claimed to have been disowned by off-the-grid parents. Tami and others secured them basic necessities and a room in a hostel, though others desired more information before agreeing to help. It was a hoax: the boys were from a loving, middle-class California family and simply wanted be on their own. When the truth came out, Tami claimed she did not regret helping; other helpers felt manipulated. Is there a relevant relationship between charity and what a donation is used for?

Mary had leftover money in her budget for the month, so she decided to donate it to charity. She decided that Kiva, a charity that offers microloans to women entrepreneurs, was her charity of choice. When she told her friend Sam, he warned her that microloans can cause more harm than good, and encouraged her to give her money to GiveDirectly, a charity that gives money to the poor with no conditions on how to use it.

After the burning of the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris wealthy indivuduals rushed to donate their money, giving the cathedral more than what it needed. Even though this act contributed to rebuilding something that symbolized great things, some are sketipcal on why the wealthy acted so fast and efficient for a building, meanwhile they turn a blind eye to bigger issues such as hunger, poverty, environmental issues, and etc. still exist. Others say there is nothing wrong with prioritizing something of personal value when it comes to choosing when or when not to donate. Is there a moral obligation to pick the issue with the most impact? Should the wealthy be called out on how they spend their money?

Can you balance harms that you cause by donating to charities that address those harms? When is moral offsetting appropriate and inappropriate?

Supporters of entitlement programs ("public charity") believe they provide essential services that protect vulnerable populations while critics argue they violate the values of limited government and individual autonomy. What is the value of charitable donations that are coerced? Are public or private charities more effective? Do people have the right to be helped in some situations? Should each individual be fully in control of how to help others?

The ALS "Ice Bucket Challenge" raised millions of dollars for ALS research but drew criticism for encouraging "slacktivism." Furthermore, ALS is much rarer and more difficult to treat than diseases like malaria. Is it unethical for a charity to solicit more donations than it needs or for donors to give to charities when the money could be better used elsewhere?

The city of San Francisco and philanthropists payed around $105,000 to fulfill the dream of a 5-year old with leukemia to be Batman for a day. Was this contribution morally permissible, given that the money could have been used elsewhere to much greater effect? Should we allocate our money to produce the greatest good for the greatest number? A case borrowed from the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl.

Vicky chooses not to give money to a homeless beggar because she worries that he will use the money to buy drugs or alcohol and wonders how he became homeless in the first place. Is her choice morally justified? What moral duties do we have to the less fortunate?

State-subsidized non-profits have been criticized for executives having annual salaries of $100,000 or more. Should non-profit executives be paid competitive salaries? Critics argue that the money should be spent on helping people, while supporters argue that for non-profits to be successful, they must be able to recruit talented workers with competitive salaries.