To the Editor:

Re “Good Charity, Bad Charity” (Sunday Review, Aug. 11):

Peter Singer writes that when it comes to charity and philanthropy, a dollar spent on preventing blindness in developing countries is “a better value” than a dollar spent on a new wing at a local art museum. His reasoning is that not going blind is far more important to us than having a better art museum.

The logical implication is that we are ethically obligated to spend whatever we have to give on charities that produce the greatest world benefit per dollar, a formula where “arts, culture and heritage” will almost always lose out to “health and security.”

This is not a plausible contention. Are we ethically prohibited from enhancing our communities by giving to the cultural, educational, spiritual or recreational institutions that mean the most to us so long as more urgent problems exist anywhere in the world? To state the proposition is to refute it.

For that matter, are we ethically prohibited from spending money for the benefit of ourselves and our families beyond bare necessities so long as those same problems persist? Of course not. A spirit of empathy and charity is ethically required. Perfect altruism — where every act and omission is calculated to produce the greatest good for the greatest number — is not.