Thus with the end goal of alleviating suffering, distributing all charity to Preventative methods is the only moral choice. Allocating any resources to Relief is a short-term waste because humane though it may seem, it works inefficiently by only stopping suffering once suffering has already begun.
Caveat: if Relief is more efficient than Prevention, such that one charity dollar might alleviate drastically more suffering if spent on Relief than Prevention, it is moral to allocate a percentage of charity to Relief, for example, for Comfort Care. This is difficult to prove, as Prevention is always more efficient in long-term.
I'm not sure, but it seems like you're making the assumption that we'll know 100% of the time where to go with Preventative methods - in other words, that we'll know what the most effective prevention will be. What if we divert a lot of money into preventative methods only to have them fail?
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'd say that I'm on board with you.