I'm a big fan of the Effective Altruism (EA) movement. If you also are interested in making the world a better place, it's worth spending time learning how to communicate better.
Even when you say something that is true, the way you say it matters. As sympathetic as I am to the view that people ought to do the most good, I find your phrasing of this sentiment hard to endorse.
Your goal is probably to encourage more people to give to AMF. You may have better success at expressing how much good AMF does with the money given, and that you would love to see more people considering donating to AMF.
Example: "Donating to AMF and the Malaria Consortium is a very effective way to help people. For $5 you provide a net that protects people from malaria for 3-4 years. This is a very cost-effective way to help others!"
EA is a shrinking movement because it is not effective at utilizing the strongest card philanthropy has. Shame. Donating to domestic charities is shameful, just like hoarding billions of dollars is shameful. Telling people AMF is effective isn't enough, we need everyone to know that other charities are not, otherwise they'll go on immorally donating to causes they care about or people that look like them.
You can shame someone into giving $10 in front of you. Good luck shaming someone to part with >10% of their income through such a negative feeling.
EA has a forum which welcomes (contrarian) opinions. Perhaps you should write up your reasons for thinking that shame is a good motivator with some research backing it up. EAs are very open minded. I'm also willing to change my mind.
The hard part is shaming people without them realizing that's what's happening. Red cross is great at this, but some organizations like PETA have gone to far. Once the shame has sunk in it's important to quickly capitalize by saying stuff about how great AMF is as you said and not double down like PETA does. Singer inadvertently figured this out with the drowning child thought experiment. People don't want to look into a bottomless pit.
Sounds like you're not describing what most people would imagine when they hear "shaming a person". You're aiming for some dark-arts psychological jujitsu.
Even if possible, even if maneuvers like this might work on some people, it is likely harder to pull off something like this consistently (thus creating damage along the way), than to just be up-front-and-honest about the good.
People in general want to come to their own conclusions, and not be told what to do. Telling them "do this" can back fire. Having a discussion, where you inquire about their point of view, and structure a conversation as a collaborative exploration, I think, is better.
Peter Singer's drowning child example is a brilliant argument, and I think one everyone ought to hear about. But I'm unsure if "shame" is what it evokes. It raises an incongruity that people then have to reconcile. And if you're kind and encouraging, providing opportunities for them to become better people (by their own light), they will more-likely do it. If they are shamed, they might end up doing mental gymnastics to conclude that "any argument that makes good people I see around me into bad people is a mistaken argument".
I'm happy to discuss this more. As you can guess it's one of my favorite topics.
Let's take the drowning child. Suppose you save the child and walk by the pond again the next day. There's another child drowning. Do you save it? Suppose you walk by the pond everyday and everyday there's another child drowning. Is there a point where you would not save the child? I think the vast majority of people would eventually stop saving the kid. I think that's because shame is what motivates the decision.Eventually they no longer feel shame pushing them to save the children. If they knew there would be a new child drowning everyday on the very first day would they save the child? I think it's likely that many people would not. Saving the child is admitting you have some responsibility for what happens to it. If you know that you will eventually stop it feels a lot better to never admit you're responsible for the child. Shame is a powerful emotion but once people start meta-thinking about it it's easy for them to get around it with mental gymnastics.
EA is effectively a utility monster, so it's not surprising to me that people mental-gymnastics their way out of it. EA needs to focus more on tractability of these problems and less on the bottomless pit if they want mass buy in. Because in the end donating to AMF doesn't actually feel that great when you it makes you realize hundreds of thousands of children are dying from preventable disease every year. It feels a lot better to pretend the problem doesn't exist so you can ignore the shame and focus on less important issues instead.
Shame being philanthropy's strongest motivator is too cynical a perspective for me. Also, many people take pride in defying those who tell them that they're living their life wrong in some way so I believe shame backfires more often than not.
I have no idea about the details of these charities but to say donating to a charity is immoral seems dumb. Misguided or poorly informed may be a better term, but "imorally donating".
I think Black Lives Matter is a scam (there was a Reddit AMA with a BLM director where people asked where the money goes, she avoided answering the question, plus their aims go far beyond "helping black people") but I don't think people are "immoral" for donating to it, just hopelessly misguided and ill informed.
I agree that the blm organization is a scam. I also agree that the people who donate are naive. If those people realized they can save lives for less than $1000 a pop and still donated to blm they'd be immoral.
Not immoral, just uninformed in my opinion. Immoral would imply that they know they are doing something that is to some extent "wrong" and do it anyway. People donating are trying to do good, but just doing it in an ineffective way. If they know about an effective way to donate somewhere else but still assume that BLM is "doing good" then I would say it's still a long stretch to call it immoral.
Even when you say something that is true, the way you say it matters. As sympathetic as I am to the view that people ought to do the most good, I find your phrasing of this sentiment hard to endorse.
Your goal is probably to encourage more people to give to AMF. You may have better success at expressing how much good AMF does with the money given, and that you would love to see more people considering donating to AMF.
Example: "Donating to AMF and the Malaria Consortium is a very effective way to help people. For $5 you provide a net that protects people from malaria for 3-4 years. This is a very cost-effective way to help others!"