Andrew Critch defines a conflationary alliance as a situation where multiple groups deliberately use the same term to describe different concepts or behaviors, because the shared terminology helps each group advance their distinct goals. E.g., people have different notions of justice, but they agree that something-called-justice is very good, so they can agree to team up and fight for justice.

In my view, the term "charity", as used in 2024, represents an example of this pattern. As is often the case, the conflationary nature of the term occasionally leads to confusion or conflict, and this underpins many of the debates and public criticism of effective altruism.

When we say ”charity" or “charitable giving", we're actually talking about at least three distinct behaviors:

Funding public goods through donations
Supporting one's in-group or collective agency through partial philanthropy
Pursuing genuinely impartial benefit for others

Each of these behaviors has different motivations, mechanisms, and moral foundations. Yet they all benefit from being labeled as "charity" - gaining tax advantages, social status, and moral legitimacy from the association.

This conflation isn't necessarily bad. In fact, it's likely emerged because it serves useful purposes for all involved. The public goods funders get tax benefits, the partial philanthropists gain broader legitimacy, and the impartial philanthropists can leverage existing infrastructure and moral intuitions.

Understanding this conflation is useful for thinking more clearly about different types of prosocial behavior. Also, it explains part of the debates and confusions about effective altruism.

Let's examine each of these meaning in detail.

Public Goods Funding

Let me share two examples of how “charitable giving” often means funding public goods directly beneficial to donors.

First, I pay dues to national climbing association. These fees maintain protection in climbing routes and access paths that anyone can use, whether they pay or not. Although I could access these improvements without contributing, paying is socially responsible. Also, I get more value than my dues cost.

Second, consider wealthy donors supporting a local concert hall. Rather than pure philanthropy, this can be viewed as donors collectively funding a public good they personally value: they likely receive more benefit from the venue than ticket prices alone r...

Conflationary Alliances