Question

You visit an animal shelter and are in a financial position to either adopt a single dog for $500 or donate the $500 to marginally improve the welfare for all dogs at the shelter by providing each dog with slightly better bedding and food. Assume that by marginally increasing the welfare of the rest of the dogs in shelter, this enhances the likelihood that they will be adopted. Of the options below, which is the best choice from an economics perspective and does it make a difference whether this is a “no-kill” shelter, where dogs’ lives would not be in danger without your assistance? Again, there is no singularly correct response, but you need to clearly articulate why you chose that answer. Also, think about which might be the most "economically sound" choice and if/why that might differ from your response, and how your knowledge of these economic theories might lend themselves to political interests and considerations. Be sure to note any biases or assumptions of the question or your reasoning. Donate the $500 to all the dogs. It doesn’t matter if it is a no-kill shelter or not, it is better to help each animal a little bit than to help just one a great deal. Adopt the single dog. The increased help you can give one animal does more good than a small amount of help for all dogs in the shelter. Donate the $500 to all of the dogs. The total amount of welfare given does depends on the shelter type.

Answer 1

Answer:

I chose to adopt one animal even though from an economic point of view it is better to subsidies the foundation as a whole as more animals get an individual benefit from that donation. In the long run is better for my own interest to have an animal that shares and space and time with me rather to have more healthy animals. This thinking is based on the assumption that I need to fulfill my needs first before trying to fulfill society needs.