7 ms·

> Not all of this money was given with the intention of maximising human welfare. Take, for instance, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which helps children stricken

> Not all of this money was given with the intention of maximising human welfare. Take, for instance, the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which helps children stricken with life-threatening illnesses, by granting “wishes”, such as meeting celebrities or visiting theme parks. The typical wish costs the foundation around $10,000 to fulfil—heartwarming for the recipient but of little help in improving health generally. This pretty much captures my main complaint about EA. Being mindful about your philanthropy is a good thing, but EA seems to turn into shaming people who value things differently. [edit] I would add that the Make-A-Wish foundation has a very significant quality of life impact on the kids AND their support network [edit2] EA = Effective Altrusim (the term was in the original post title, but has been edited out)

LeanderK 8y ago
EA? EDIT: Make-a-Wish seems more like a giant pr-machine. Granted it's helping some, but wasting a lot of resources that could be better allocated. I guess I am part of the movement, without ever thinking about it
- dguo 8y ago
  "Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement that uses evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to benefit others." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism
- ss2003 8y ago
  There is a motivational value in Make-a-Wish. I'm not saying that extensive resources should be committed to it, but if emotional impact of a Make-a-Wish story spurs people to be more altruistic or become childhood leukemia researchers, then it's not wasted money.
  - LeanderK 8y ago
    I have thought about it...but I don't really know whether that's the case. There is no encouragement or any instructions how to help yourself. We aren't all famous singers. The videos are great to watch, but to me it really feels more like a pr-machine.
- quirkot 8y ago
  It may be useful to consider the Make-a-Wish foundation as a performing arts organization that focuses on a large number of intimate performances.
Seipaho8 8y ago
> who value things differently Can you try to formulate those values? > I would add that the Make-A-Wish foundation has a very significant quality of life impact on the kids AND their support network But given the costs per instance that impact is only on a small fraction of all cases. A smaller impact for everyone or one that only materializes in the future would likely generate more utility if you add them up.
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  > Can you try to formulate those values? Perhaps your question is phrased poorly, but it appears you're asking OP to rationalize every value a donor has when they donate to an organization like Make-A-Wish. Is that what you meant? If so, where would one even start to answer this question?
  - Seipaho8 8y ago
    Well, I wanted a list of values that, for them, rank higher than human lives. I mean every donation has an opportunity cost, and that cost can be lives not saved. People are implicitly willing to make such tradeoffs. What I am asking is to think about it and make those preferences explicit.
- quirkot 8y ago
  Here is a value that I have which is counter to ethical altruism: I have a small amount of cash in my pocket, which will (given enough time) purchase junk food with. However, I see a random charity donation box so I put my money in that and feel happy that I've done two good things.
- michaelt 8y ago
  Can you try to formulate those values? I donate money to the AMF and SCI charities mentioned in the article. But I might also donate to the charity that supports my cousin who has cerebral palsy, because I can see with my own eyes that they're doing good work; and because it's work I'd like to see continue. Or I might donate to the charity that gave me a scholarship when I was younger, to repay them and so other people can benefit like I did. Or I might donate to Wikipedia, because although it's hard to value wikipedia page views in terms of quality-adjusted life years saved, you can surely get a great many page views for your dollar. Or maybe my colleague in work is running a marathon for charity, and although our professional relationship wouldn't be damaged at all if I didn't donate, our professional relationship would be improved if I did; perhaps I see a possibility to leverage better relationships into success at work. Or I might consider that I have fully discharged my moral duty for this financial year by donations I've already made; and hence I can spend money on things that are utterly uncharitable if I feel like it, and spending money on things that are inefficiently charitable is relatively better than that. Or I might donate to a political organisation, because I think I directly benefit from their activism....
akvadrako 8y ago
Are you suggesting donors to make-a-wish actually value making one dying kid (and his support network) happy more than saving the lives of several? I doubt that's usually the case because if you consider it for a moment is seems so unfair and cruel. No, it's probably something else that motivates their decision...
- contravariant 8y ago
  They probably do value spending $10,000 on making one dying kid happy higher than $10,000 worth of medical research. If you claim $10,000 worth of medical research will save the lives of several people then clearly we're doing something wrong with the other billions we spend on medical research.
  - bobcostas55 8y ago
    $10k worth of malaria nets will save a couple of lives.
    - contravariant 8y ago
      That's a fair point, but ultimately people are going to care more about children that are 'closer' to them. You're free to criticize people for this, but it probably won't do you any favours.
      - kinsomo 8y ago
        > That's a fair point, but ultimately people are going to care more about children that are 'closer' to them. You're free to criticize people for this, but it probably won't do you any favours. Also, making charity too much about distant problems and far off research outcomes factors out the civic and community-level thinking that actually drives and sustains a lot of charity. It also makes charity solely the domain of experts. Instead of seeing a problem firsthand in your first-world community and reacting to fix it, you have to delegate to someone who you hope knows the highest needs in far off lands.
specialist 8y ago
"...seems to turn into shaming people who value things differently." Freedom of association. Why would I (willingly) do business with people working against me?
Symmetry 8y ago
There's nothing shameful about donating to the Make-A-Wish foundation. It's certianly better to donate there than to spend the money on booze, video games, fancy clothes, etc or the vast majority of things competing for your money. But you still get far less moral credit for donating there than donating somewhere more effective. And yes, you can count the effects of the Foundation on the kids support network but remember that a kid who dies of malaria also has friends and family who will be affected by their death.
- castlecrasher2 8y ago
  > But you still get far less moral credit for donating there than donating somewhere more effective. I take issue with this attitude. How is this anything but degrading and shaming those who give their time and money to a noble cause? I frankly don't see how your opinion on efficacy matters, it appears you want to make people feel bad for doing good-but-not-good-enough things.
  - wadfginoi 8y ago
    The Make-A-Wish Foundation is mostly useless. People have a moral obligation to set aside their feelings in order to do the right thing. Giving to the Make-A-Wish Foundation is motivated mostly by a desire to feel good. If you want me to stop saying that, prove me wrong. Calling me mean isn't an argument. If what I say makes people feel bad, the solution isn't to start lying to make them feel better.
    - castlecrasher2 8y ago
      > Giving to the Make-A-Wish Foundation is motivated mostly by a desire to feel good. Me spending $40 to go out to dinner with my wife is motivated by a desire to feel good. Should I instead "set aside my feelings" and spend that on your list of approved charities "in order to do the right thing"? Have you given up all frivolous spending and donate it to causes you believe to be effective? I should have started by saying that it's good that you're thinking of which charities you find to be a more effective target for donations. It turns from thoughtful to unnecessary when you pass judgment on others for giving differently than you would give.
scarmig 8y ago
I've never seen a EA advocate berate a donor giving money to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. I do often see people injecting themselves into discussions of EA once they get defensive about their charity choices. The people who seem to be judgmental are those who dislike how EA advocates choose to operate.
asfgionionio 8y ago
Oh, moral relativism! How fun! The Make-A-Wish Foundation is terrible. It is impossible to defend it by claiming it does a good job. So instead people fall back on "gosh you're mean" and "stop shaming me!" and "everything's like, totally relative, dude..." Seems you've chosen a combination of the second two. Notice the contradictions in your comment. Effective altruists "value things differently" than you do. They care about efficiency and objectivity. Yet you're criticizing them for it! You can't have it both ways. Either it's wrong to criticize "people who value things differently," in which case it's immoral for you to criticize effective altruists for their values, or it's fine, in which case you have no reason to criticize them. I've never met a genuine moral relativist (at least as most people use that term). I've met lots of people who claim all values are subjective, but never one who actually acts like it. They'll trot out that argument to escape from a tricky spot, but within five minutes they'll be right back to talking about objective morality. I, for one, have no real problem with the Make-A-Wish Foundation. It just isn't a charity. It's an expensive luxury brand of peace of mind.

LeanderK 8y ago

EA? EDIT: Make-a-Wish seems more like a giant pr-machine. Granted it's helping some, but wasting a lot of resources that could be better allocated. I guess I am part of the movement, without ever thinking about it

dguo 8y ago
"Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement that uses evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to benefit others." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism
ss2003 8y ago
There is a motivational value in Make-a-Wish. I'm not saying that extensive resources should be committed to it, but if emotional impact of a Make-a-Wish story spurs people to be more altruistic or become childhood leukemia researchers, then it's not wasted money.
- LeanderK 8y ago
  I have thought about it...but I don't really know whether that's the case. There is no encouragement or any instructions how to help yourself. We aren't all famous singers. The videos are great to watch, but to me it really feels more like a pr-machine.
quirkot 8y ago
It may be useful to consider the Make-a-Wish foundation as a performing arts organization that focuses on a large number of intimate performances.

Seipaho8 8y ago

> who value things differently Can you try to formulate those values? > I would add that the Make-A-Wish foundation has a very significant quality of life impact on the kids AND their support network But given the costs per instance that impact is only on a small fraction of all cases. A smaller impact for everyone or one that only materializes in the future would likely generate more utility if you add them up.

castlecrasher2 8y ago
> Can you try to formulate those values? Perhaps your question is phrased poorly, but it appears you're asking OP to rationalize every value a donor has when they donate to an organization like Make-A-Wish. Is that what you meant? If so, where would one even start to answer this question?
- Seipaho8 8y ago
  Well, I wanted a list of values that, for them, rank higher than human lives. I mean every donation has an opportunity cost, and that cost can be lives not saved. People are implicitly willing to make such tradeoffs. What I am asking is to think about it and make those preferences explicit.
quirkot 8y ago
Here is a value that I have which is counter to ethical altruism: I have a small amount of cash in my pocket, which will (given enough time) purchase junk food with. However, I see a random charity donation box so I put my money in that and feel happy that I've done two good things.
michaelt 8y ago
Can you try to formulate those values? I donate money to the AMF and SCI charities mentioned in the article. But I might also donate to the charity that supports my cousin who has cerebral palsy, because I can see with my own eyes that they're doing good work; and because it's work I'd like to see continue. Or I might donate to the charity that gave me a scholarship when I was younger, to repay them and so other people can benefit like I did. Or I might donate to Wikipedia, because although it's hard to value wikipedia page views in terms of quality-adjusted life years saved, you can surely get a great many page views for your dollar. Or maybe my colleague in work is running a marathon for charity, and although our professional relationship wouldn't be damaged at all if I didn't donate, our professional relationship would be improved if I did; perhaps I see a possibility to leverage better relationships into success at work. Or I might consider that I have fully discharged my moral duty for this financial year by donations I've already made; and hence I can spend money on things that are utterly uncharitable if I feel like it, and spending money on things that are inefficiently charitable is relatively better than that. Or I might donate to a political organisation, because I think I directly benefit from their activism....

akvadrako 8y ago

Are you suggesting donors to make-a-wish actually value making one dying kid (and his support network) happy more than saving the lives of several? I doubt that's usually the case because if you consider it for a moment is seems so unfair and cruel. No, it's probably something else that motivates their decision...

contravariant 8y ago
They probably do value spending $10,000 on making one dying kid happy higher than $10,000 worth of medical research. If you claim $10,000 worth of medical research will save the lives of several people then clearly we're doing something wrong with the other billions we spend on medical research.
- bobcostas55 8y ago
  $10k worth of malaria nets will save a couple of lives.
  - contravariant 8y ago
    That's a fair point, but ultimately people are going to care more about children that are 'closer' to them. You're free to criticize people for this, but it probably won't do you any favours.
    - kinsomo 8y ago
      > That's a fair point, but ultimately people are going to care more about children that are 'closer' to them. You're free to criticize people for this, but it probably won't do you any favours. Also, making charity too much about distant problems and far off research outcomes factors out the civic and community-level thinking that actually drives and sustains a lot of charity. It also makes charity solely the domain of experts. Instead of seeing a problem firsthand in your first-world community and reacting to fix it, you have to delegate to someone who you hope knows the highest needs in far off lands.

specialist 8y ago

"...seems to turn into shaming people who value things differently." Freedom of association. Why would I (willingly) do business with people working against me?

Symmetry 8y ago

There's nothing shameful about donating to the Make-A-Wish foundation. It's certianly better to donate there than to spend the money on booze, video games, fancy clothes, etc or the vast majority of things competing for your money. But you still get far less moral credit for donating there than donating somewhere more effective. And yes, you can count the effects of the Foundation on the kids support network but remember that a kid who dies of malaria also has friends and family who will be affected by their death.

castlecrasher2 8y ago
> But you still get far less moral credit for donating there than donating somewhere more effective. I take issue with this attitude. How is this anything but degrading and shaming those who give their time and money to a noble cause? I frankly don't see how your opinion on efficacy matters, it appears you want to make people feel bad for doing good-but-not-good-enough things.
- wadfginoi 8y ago
  The Make-A-Wish Foundation is mostly useless. People have a moral obligation to set aside their feelings in order to do the right thing. Giving to the Make-A-Wish Foundation is motivated mostly by a desire to feel good. If you want me to stop saying that, prove me wrong. Calling me mean isn't an argument. If what I say makes people feel bad, the solution isn't to start lying to make them feel better.
  - castlecrasher2 8y ago
    > Giving to the Make-A-Wish Foundation is motivated mostly by a desire to feel good. Me spending $40 to go out to dinner with my wife is motivated by a desire to feel good. Should I instead "set aside my feelings" and spend that on your list of approved charities "in order to do the right thing"? Have you given up all frivolous spending and donate it to causes you believe to be effective? I should have started by saying that it's good that you're thinking of which charities you find to be a more effective target for donations. It turns from thoughtful to unnecessary when you pass judgment on others for giving differently than you would give.

scarmig 8y ago

I've never seen a EA advocate berate a donor giving money to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. I do often see people injecting themselves into discussions of EA once they get defensive about their charity choices. The people who seem to be judgmental are those who dislike how EA advocates choose to operate.

asfgionionio 8y ago

Oh, moral relativism! How fun! The Make-A-Wish Foundation is terrible. It is impossible to defend it by claiming it does a good job. So instead people fall back on "gosh you're mean" and "stop shaming me!" and "everything's like, totally relative, dude..." Seems you've chosen a combination of the second two. Notice the contradictions in your comment. Effective altruists "value things differently" than you do. They care about efficiency and objectivity. Yet you're criticizing them for it! You can't have it both ways. Either it's wrong to criticize "people who value things differently," in which case it's immoral for you to criticize effective altruists for their values, or it's fine, in which case you have no reason to criticize them. I've never met a genuine moral relativist (at least as most people use that term). I've met lots of people who claim all values are subjective, but never one who actually acts like it. They'll trot out that argument to escape from a tricky spot, but within five minutes they'll be right back to talking about objective morality. I, for one, have no real problem with the Make-A-Wish Foundation. It just isn't a charity. It's an expensive luxury brand of peace of mind.