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?

Universities are increasingly accepting private money to fund academic centers, programs, and faculty. Often, this money comes from sources that have clear political agendas. Proponents of private funding in academia argue that as long as the supported research and teaching meet the standards of acceptable scholarship, it doesn’t matter how it is funded.

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.

Many organizations that rely on donors for funding wonder whether it is morally permissible to accept gifts from donors who acquired their resources through questionable practices or engage in immoral projects. When, if ever, should nonprofits turn down donations that could help them realize morally good ends?