There's something to be said about helping those around you directly as a way to build a better local community. Especially when you can help 'for free' (e.g. by helping someone with a flat, as I mentioned).
Now, that said, if we are talking about giving out $10'000, and we're sort of encouraging more to do it (by sharing how we donate), at that magnitude and scale I think it would be better if we encouraged people to donate more effectively.
I think this is hard for monetary assistance where there really is a direct tradeoff. It's hard to say well I'll keep this $1000 to help someone I find individually when those $1000 instead donated to a faceless charity would probably save another persons life.
If you don't know an individual who needs the $1000, then sure, donate to charity. But not all charity has to be in the form of large cash gifts and not all charity recipients have to be cancer patients on the verge of death. Sometimes being charitable to individuals is as simple as taking out a coworker or neighbor to lunch and just talking to them. Lots of people suffer from loneliness, depression, and things other than cancer and would benefit enormously from someone going out of their way and showing an act of love to them.
> I think equating dollars to lives is too utilitarian a take to be useful IMHO. The goal of charity could be so much more than "lives saved". It could be "lives improved" which cascades into "societies improved".
Sure, but I guess I think "life saved" is probably the extreme case of life improved.
So I guess what I'm saying is... why not both? Donate to charitable organizations, but not exclusively. Also go out of your way to (anonymously or not) do charitable things to individuals.