3 ms·

I think another interesting framework would be: 1. Help someone when it benefits you. 2. Help someone when it is easy/neutral to you. 3. Help someone when it

I think another interesting framework would be: 1. Help someone when it benefits you. 2. Help someone when it is easy/neutral to you. 3. Help someone when it is costly/time-consuming/harmful to you.

byrneseyeview 16y ago
This is not efficient. Under this system, giving a homeless person $1 is good, but giving him $1 and setting another dollar on fire (maybe in a way that hurts me!) is even better. Instead, it makes sense to measure utility against cost. Helping someone at great expense is good. Helping someone at no incremental expense is better. Helping someone in a way that produces extra wealth--perhaps enough for you to profit from it--is best of all.
- alphaoverlord 16y ago
  > This is not efficient. Under this system, giving a homeless person $1 is good, but giving him $1 and setting another dollar on fire (maybe in a way that hurts me!) is even better. I would say that these are two distinct acts. You do not help someone by setting another dollar on fire. Rather, the comparison would be giving someone your last 10$ vs. giving 10$ when you are a billionaire. I think in some ways, perhaps unquantifiable, that it is more 'noble' about acts that are not in self interest. Businesses are not the same as non-profits, even if they functionally provide the same service. > Helping someone in a way that produces extra wealth--perhaps enough for you to profit from it--is best of all. I don't know if this was intentional, but this implies a higher order magnitude of help. I would personally balk if I hear of a charity that donates only 50% of what they receive to the intended audience.
  - byrneseyeview 16y ago
    One can come up with an example that makes the same point I made before, but isn't 'two distinct acts'. Stabbing yourself in order to donate blood in person versus doing it the usual needle-and-bag way, for example. My point is that arbitrarily adding costs to a given act doesn't make it better. Charity isn't good because it sucks for someone; it's good because it's good for someone. If you're giving your last $10, you're putting yourself in financial danger; you might need that money. The billionaire isn't in any danger from being $10 short. Thus, the first person is causing net harm to the world; the same $10 has been donated to the same charity, but the result is one person closer to penury. Whereas if the billionaire did it, that wouldn't happen. I don't know if this was intentional, but this implies a higher order magnitude of help. I would personally balk if I hear of a charity that donates only 50% of what they receive to the intended audience. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=28 http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&... Lots of charities do that. My main point is that judging charity by cost is dumb. It produces bad incentives. Arguably, those charities are superior to other charities, since they make it so expensive to help someone. To do $100 worth of good at the Disabled Veterans Associations, you need to donate nearly $10,000! Donating to a more efficient charity means you suffer less pain for a given amount of money making it to the end recipients. If costliness makes charities better, shouldn't we seek out the most inefficient possible charities? Why not?

I think another interesting framework would be: 1. Help someone when it benefits you. 2. Help someone when it is easy/neutral to you. 3. Help someone when it is costly/time-consuming/harmful to you.

byrneseyeview 16y ago

This is not efficient. Under this system, giving a homeless person $1 is good, but giving him $1 and setting another dollar on fire (maybe in a way that hurts me!) is even better. Instead, it makes sense to measure utility against cost. Helping someone at great expense is good. Helping someone at no incremental expense is better. Helping someone in a way that produces extra wealth--perhaps enough for you to profit from it--is best of all.

alphaoverlord 16y ago
> This is not efficient. Under this system, giving a homeless person $1 is good, but giving him $1 and setting another dollar on fire (maybe in a way that hurts me!) is even better. I would say that these are two distinct acts. You do not help someone by setting another dollar on fire. Rather, the comparison would be giving someone your last 10$ vs. giving 10$ when you are a billionaire. I think in some ways, perhaps unquantifiable, that it is more 'noble' about acts that are not in self interest. Businesses are not the same as non-profits, even if they functionally provide the same service. > Helping someone in a way that produces extra wealth--perhaps enough for you to profit from it--is best of all. I don't know if this was intentional, but this implies a higher order magnitude of help. I would personally balk if I hear of a charity that donates only 50% of what they receive to the intended audience.
- byrneseyeview 16y ago
  One can come up with an example that makes the same point I made before, but isn't 'two distinct acts'. Stabbing yourself in order to donate blood in person versus doing it the usual needle-and-bag way, for example. My point is that arbitrarily adding costs to a given act doesn't make it better. Charity isn't good because it sucks for someone; it's good because it's good for someone. If you're giving your last $10, you're putting yourself in financial danger; you might need that money. The billionaire isn't in any danger from being $10 short. Thus, the first person is causing net harm to the world; the same $10 has been donated to the same charity, but the result is one person closer to penury. Whereas if the billionaire did it, that wouldn't happen. I don't know if this was intentional, but this implies a higher order magnitude of help. I would personally balk if I hear of a charity that donates only 50% of what they receive to the intended audience. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=28 http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&... Lots of charities do that. My main point is that judging charity by cost is dumb. It produces bad incentives. Arguably, those charities are superior to other charities, since they make it so expensive to help someone. To do $100 worth of good at the Disabled Veterans Associations, you need to donate nearly $10,000! Donating to a more efficient charity means you suffer less pain for a given amount of money making it to the end recipients. If costliness makes charities better, shouldn't we seek out the most inefficient possible charities? Why not?