5 ms·

For $10,000 a day you could save 100 lives a day via optimal philanthropy. At a certain amount of money, you might have a moral responsibility to not do exactly

by rms 16y ago

For $10,000 a day you could save 100 lives a day via optimal philanthropy. At a certain amount of money, you might have a moral responsibility to not do exactly what you want to do. http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/villagereach http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/villager...

mhartl 16y ago
How do you enforce a moral responsibility?
- IgorPartola 16y ago
  That question has no meaning. Morality is not something you can enforce. Morality is a strictly personal matter, and anyone that tells you that you have a moral responsibility to do something is confused. Nobody can tell you what your moral responsibilities are other than yourself. In this light, the parent post is right. "You might have a moral responsibility" implies that you may feel compelled to do something. The frequent misinterpretation is that you have a responsibility to someone else, which is false. If you feel compelled to carry on a job you hate to save lives, you have a moral responsibility. If you do not feel so compelled, you do not have a moral responsibility. You cannot have a moral responsibility without feeling compelled.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    "Morality is a strictly personal matter," Oh this is very much a contested position (known as 'objective' vs 'relative' morality). If I feel that murdering people with red hair is morally neutral, or positive even, is it so? I posit that it's not - murder is objectively morally wrong, no matter the ideas or feeling of being compelled of anyone. To phrase it in your terms, I think everybody has a moral responsibility not to murder people, even if they feel compelled to do so.
    - IgorPartola 16y ago
      Definitely contested. I believe that relative morality is the best we can really hope for, but I know that many disagree.
danenania 16y ago
You can also improve the lives of those around you by being a happy and fulfilled person. In the end it doesn't really make any sense to treat life as an ethical math equation. There will always be something more you could do for others no matter how much you give away.
- astrofinch 16y ago
  It all really boils down to a question of what your preferences are. Do you want to save 9 peoples' lives each day or do you want to have a somewhat more enjoyable work environment? "There will always be something more you could do for others no matter how much you give away." This argument becomes irrelevant once you boil things down to a question of preferences.
3pt14159 16y ago
Given 200 working days a year for that type of arrangement (assuming down time between contracts) we're talking about $2mm a year. Far less than a well executed startup could net. (And for someone demanding $10k a day, I assume that (s)he'd have a fairly high chance of attaining it.) Also: Fuck slavery. Nobody has the right to my life. I'll help the poor, but it isn't because I'm responsible for them, it is because I can empathize or sympathize with their condition and the relative cost of helping them is negligible.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
astrofinch 16y ago
I'm not sure the phrase "moral responsibility" makes any sense from a reductionist point of view.
roel_v 16y ago
"you might have a moral responsibility to not do exactly what you want to do" Eh, no. Nobody has any moral responsibility to live their lives for someone else's sake.
- khafra 16y ago
  That's why he used the word, "might." Some people wouldn't feel a moral responsibility to pull a toddler back out of the path of a speeding bus; but many people would--and if flyosity is one of the latter, he might appreciate being made aware of the situation and his personal abilities vis-a-vis the pulling.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    Well I was more thinking in terms of the discussion at hand - does one have (or, 'might there be') a moral responsibility to change a life's direction (new career) when one can make much more money that can then be used to help others. In that context, I am vehement that there is no such responsibility. Pull a toddler out of that path of a bus - I'm not sure, I think so, but I'm not sure; I don't have a rational reason for it that can be derived from my moral axioms. I don't care very much either at this point, it's a different discussion I think (or at least a discussion much further down a sliding scale). For the case presented, I do have a strong opinion about, and felt offended at the thought that someone would suggest there is such a responsibility. Which is why I responded.
    - khafra 16y ago
      The two situations are hard to reconcile because your moral axioms are an attempt to make a simple, coherent system starting from your moral intuitions; but your moral intuitions do not actually arise from a simple, coherent system. In the case presented, the only differences from the toddler's are the time required to save the lives, and the psychological availability of the lives saved. Unless your moral intuitions and/or moral axioms allow lower levels of responsibility for suffering which is easier to ignore, the "time required" is the only escape. If you lived in a world where toddlers were perpetually falling under busses in front of you, would you be morally obligated to stay in good physical condition and pay attention to nearby toddlers so you could save more of them? If not, you should be safe from the responsibility to maximize your income and use the surplus to save lives.

by rms 16y ago

mhartl 16y ago

How do you enforce a moral responsibility?

IgorPartola 16y ago
That question has no meaning. Morality is not something you can enforce. Morality is a strictly personal matter, and anyone that tells you that you have a moral responsibility to do something is confused. Nobody can tell you what your moral responsibilities are other than yourself. In this light, the parent post is right. "You might have a moral responsibility" implies that you may feel compelled to do something. The frequent misinterpretation is that you have a responsibility to someone else, which is false. If you feel compelled to carry on a job you hate to save lives, you have a moral responsibility. If you do not feel so compelled, you do not have a moral responsibility. You cannot have a moral responsibility without feeling compelled.
- roel_v 16y ago
  "Morality is a strictly personal matter," Oh this is very much a contested position (known as 'objective' vs 'relative' morality). If I feel that murdering people with red hair is morally neutral, or positive even, is it so? I posit that it's not - murder is objectively morally wrong, no matter the ideas or feeling of being compelled of anyone. To phrase it in your terms, I think everybody has a moral responsibility not to murder people, even if they feel compelled to do so.
  - IgorPartola 16y ago
    Definitely contested. I believe that relative morality is the best we can really hope for, but I know that many disagree.

danenania 16y ago

You can also improve the lives of those around you by being a happy and fulfilled person. In the end it doesn't really make any sense to treat life as an ethical math equation. There will always be something more you could do for others no matter how much you give away.

astrofinch 16y ago
It all really boils down to a question of what your preferences are. Do you want to save 9 peoples' lives each day or do you want to have a somewhat more enjoyable work environment? "There will always be something more you could do for others no matter how much you give away." This argument becomes irrelevant once you boil things down to a question of preferences.

3pt14159 16y ago

Given 200 working days a year for that type of arrangement (assuming down time between contracts) we're talking about $2mm a year. Far less than a well executed startup could net. (And for someone demanding $10k a day, I assume that (s)he'd have a fairly high chance of attaining it.) Also: Fuck slavery. Nobody has the right to my life. I'll help the poor, but it isn't because I'm responsible for them, it is because I can empathize or sympathize with their condition and the relative cost of helping them is negligible.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

astrofinch 16y ago

I'm not sure the phrase "moral responsibility" makes any sense from a reductionist point of view.

roel_v 16y ago

"you might have a moral responsibility to not do exactly what you want to do" Eh, no. Nobody has any moral responsibility to live their lives for someone else's sake.

khafra 16y ago
That's why he used the word, "might." Some people wouldn't feel a moral responsibility to pull a toddler back out of the path of a speeding bus; but many people would--and if flyosity is one of the latter, he might appreciate being made aware of the situation and his personal abilities vis-a-vis the pulling.
- roel_v 16y ago
  Well I was more thinking in terms of the discussion at hand - does one have (or, 'might there be') a moral responsibility to change a life's direction (new career) when one can make much more money that can then be used to help others. In that context, I am vehement that there is no such responsibility. Pull a toddler out of that path of a bus - I'm not sure, I think so, but I'm not sure; I don't have a rational reason for it that can be derived from my moral axioms. I don't care very much either at this point, it's a different discussion I think (or at least a discussion much further down a sliding scale). For the case presented, I do have a strong opinion about, and felt offended at the thought that someone would suggest there is such a responsibility. Which is why I responded.
  - khafra 16y ago
    The two situations are hard to reconcile because your moral axioms are an attempt to make a simple, coherent system starting from your moral intuitions; but your moral intuitions do not actually arise from a simple, coherent system. In the case presented, the only differences from the toddler's are the time required to save the lives, and the psychological availability of the lives saved. Unless your moral intuitions and/or moral axioms allow lower levels of responsibility for suffering which is easier to ignore, the "time required" is the only escape. If you lived in a world where toddlers were perpetually falling under busses in front of you, would you be morally obligated to stay in good physical condition and pay attention to nearby toddlers so you could save more of them? If not, you should be safe from the responsibility to maximize your income and use the surplus to save lives.