4 ms·
The whole philosophy is silly. They advocate high paying careers (which tend to be exploitative ways to get money) and ignore the moral hazard of well intention
by reagency 11y ago
The whole philosophy is silly. They advocate high paying careers (which tend to be exploitative ways to get money) and ignore the moral hazard of well intentioned people turning out to consume that income later. They inore that a smart person in a "mundane" public service / charity job might develop experience and connections that lead to a massive novel improvement to that sector.
- griffinmahon 11y agoOne of their counter-arguments to your second sentence is that if you, the ethically-minded person who will donate a significant portion of your income, aren't in that position at the potentially exploitative job, odds are someone else will be who isn't ethically-minded. On the other hand, if you were to go work aid on the ground in Africa, it's likely that you, who maybe has a valuable skill-set capable of earning more, could be replaced by another person who wants to work in aid.
- BenjaminTodd 11y agoIt's not evident from this particular post, but overall we put a lot of emphasis on the "career capital" you get out of different options (the extent to which they put you in a better position to have a positive impact in the future). https://80000hours.org/career-guide/basics/ https://80000hours.org/career-guide/basics/ We also think "corruption risk" should be taken very carefully, which is why we advocate making a public pledge of your intention to donate, and being part of a community. We also don't think you should take a high-earning career if it causes significant harm.