Each Year, we have been inundated with requests from readers for data that might help them assess not only the fiscal integrity of charities that solicit their gifts, but also the efficacy of their programs. We have often been asked to rank charities by quality.
We have always refused to do qualitative ordering, as that would require making value judgements that we’d prefer our readers make for themselves, using their own criteria. Individuals and organizations tend to have differing priorities and tactical perceptions.
For example, one party might think the best way to fight cruelty is to fight meat-eating first, because if eating animals is accepted, people tend to feel animal life in general has low moral value.
Someone else might argue that protecting dogs and cats should come first, as these are the animals with whom the most people relate. Once a certain standard of treatment of pets is established, this theory goes, better attitudes will carry over to help other species.
Others might put the emphasis on stopping hunting, trapping, and other recreational torment of animals, because such practices lack moral defense.
Many other priorities might be chosen, without any choice being “right” to the exclusion of all others — and then there is the question of how best to achieve the goal. Should one seek reform, or only abolition? Should one pursue protest, legislation, litigation, mitigation, education, reduction, refinement, replacement, or direct action? Is the object immediate redress of a grievance, or effecting long-term change in public attitudes?
Different approaches must be tried, as a way of finding out what might best resolve each issue. Further, the more diverse the voices of animal and habitat protection, the more chance there is to involve people of widely differing background and outlook.