10 ms·

Are they giving to charities ran by their church (or an affiliation)? Are they giving to their church and it's called charity?

loup-vaillant 10y ago
> Are they giving to charities ran by their church (or an affiliation)? No idea, and I'm not sure it even matters. Such charities tend to help anyone afflicted by the plight they chose to alleviate. > Are they giving to their church and it's called charity? Since it was coming from a LessWrong contributor in Skepticon, I'd say this is improbable. Most likely, he scanned the study for such errors.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  Charitable activity provides a lot of political cover for really shitty religiously motivated behavior. For example, giving money to the Salvation Army is probably a net-negative effect on the world.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    > For example, giving money to the Salvation Army is probably a net-negative effect on the world. What?
    - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
      It funds anti-homosexual political activity, attaches onerous religious proselytization to their poverty outreach, subsidizes in-your-face guilt-tripping bell ringers, crowds out other anti-poverty efforts, and reduces the charitable effort that donators bring to more worthwhile causes. It's not literally the worst charity - that probably belongs to Susan G. Komen - but it is pretty terrible.
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        That's quite a bigoted perspective you have.
        ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        How bigoted I am is completely irrelevant as to how terrible the Salvation Army is. I'd much rather learn why you think my beliefs about the Salvation Army are wrong, or why you think my beliefs about what constitutes "good" are wrong.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        Well, I'm a Christian, so that probably answers your question. If you want to talk more specifically, I'd be happy to. But while I'm sure I don't agree with everything the SA does or all of its methods (keeping in mind that it's a huge organization, spread around the world, with many different chapters, people, etc--so it's not like a monolithic organization where everyone walks and talks the same), I certainly recognize the enormous good they have done throughout their history. For you to say that their work is a net-negative is quite shameful.
        ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        First of all, I said that giving them more money is net-negative. That's a very different thing than their work being net-negative. Second, the Salvation Army isn't responsible for all the good they have done. They're responsible for the difference in what would have been done if they didn't exist, compared to what they did. This difference is some combination of converting poverty-relief effort into evangelical christian proselytization and changing how much effort gets spent relieving poverty. The relative moral weights of these is an open question that is completely un-answered by knowing how much total poverty relief they do. Like, if you choose to become a doctor, you shouldn't get kudos for every life you save. You should get kudos for every life that got saved because you chose to become a doctor instead of your next best option. Other people would have been doctors if you weren't interested, and other doctors would have treated your cases if you weren't a doctor. The good that a choice does can only be measured in terms of opportunity costs. Finally, I'm never going to feel ashamed to say what I think is right. No matter what. If donating to the Salvation Army makes the world a worse place, I want to say that donating to the Salvation Army makes the world a worse place. If it doesn't, then I don't want to say it. If I'm wrong, help me understand how I'm wrong. If you just want to suppress an opinion because it's a particular kind of opinion, fuck you.

loup-vaillant 10y ago

> Are they giving to charities ran by their church (or an affiliation)? No idea, and I'm not sure it even matters. Such charities tend to help anyone afflicted by the plight they chose to alleviate. > Are they giving to their church and it's called charity? Since it was coming from a LessWrong contributor in Skepticon, I'd say this is improbable. Most likely, he scanned the study for such errors.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Charitable activity provides a lot of political cover for really shitty religiously motivated behavior. For example, giving money to the Salvation Army is probably a net-negative effect on the world.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > For example, giving money to the Salvation Army is probably a net-negative effect on the world. What?
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    It funds anti-homosexual political activity, attaches onerous religious proselytization to their poverty outreach, subsidizes in-your-face guilt-tripping bell ringers, crowds out other anti-poverty efforts, and reduces the charitable effort that donators bring to more worthwhile causes. It's not literally the worst charity - that probably belongs to Susan G. Komen - but it is pretty terrible.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      That's quite a bigoted perspective you have.
      - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        How bigoted I am is completely irrelevant as to how terrible the Salvation Army is. I'd much rather learn why you think my beliefs about the Salvation Army are wrong, or why you think my beliefs about what constitutes "good" are wrong.
        alphapapa 10y ago
        Well, I'm a Christian, so that probably answers your question. If you want to talk more specifically, I'd be happy to. But while I'm sure I don't agree with everything the SA does or all of its methods (keeping in mind that it's a huge organization, spread around the world, with many different chapters, people, etc--so it's not like a monolithic organization where everyone walks and talks the same), I certainly recognize the enormous good they have done throughout their history. For you to say that their work is a net-negative is quite shameful.
        ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        First of all, I said that giving them more money is net-negative. That's a very different thing than their work being net-negative. Second, the Salvation Army isn't responsible for all the good they have done. They're responsible for the difference in what would have been done if they didn't exist, compared to what they did. This difference is some combination of converting poverty-relief effort into evangelical christian proselytization and changing how much effort gets spent relieving poverty. The relative moral weights of these is an open question that is completely un-answered by knowing how much total poverty relief they do. Like, if you choose to become a doctor, you shouldn't get kudos for every life you save. You should get kudos for every life that got saved because you chose to become a doctor instead of your next best option. Other people would have been doctors if you weren't interested, and other doctors would have treated your cases if you weren't a doctor. The good that a choice does can only be measured in terms of opportunity costs. Finally, I'm never going to feel ashamed to say what I think is right. No matter what. If donating to the Salvation Army makes the world a worse place, I want to say that donating to the Salvation Army makes the world a worse place. If it doesn't, then I don't want to say it. If I'm wrong, help me understand how I'm wrong. If you just want to suppress an opinion because it's a particular kind of opinion, fuck you.