4 ms·

> [building houses] is the goal of Habitat for Humanity, correct? I think that's PART of their goal. They're a Christian organization. "Service" is also a part

> [building houses] is the goal of Habitat for Humanity, correct? I think that's PART of their goal. They're a Christian organization. "Service" is also a part of their mission, that means having people physically work for/with the needy (and not just give money). Moreover, much of their work is done domestically where construction labor is NOT cheap. Yes, some things are going to be shoddy, but it's really hard to get a house built and renovated for low cost in the USA. There are challenges not only in finding labor but also general contractors and materials. Could all the "building of houses" be done more efficiently if Habitat for Humanity was all just finance and management operations? Perhaps, but the service aspect would be missing.

pdonis 6y ago
> "Service" is also a part of their mission The point of the article under discussion is that "service", if it just means "doing stuff yourself" without regard to how productive you actually are--how much you actually help--is a morally incompetent goal. If you have a feeling of service after productively helping someone, that's great. But if you have a feeling of service while the actual impact of what you did was negligible (or even negative), that's bad. So "service" can't be a goal just by itself; it has to be something like "service that actually does help".
- PeterisP 6y ago
  "service" definitely can be a goal just by itself - perhaps you can argue that it shouldn't be a goal by itself, but I think that it's undeniable that in certain cases it is a truthful, accurate description of a goal that some people have. And IMHO the "should" discussion is even not that relevant there because it does not change the values that people actually have. As people say regarding decision theory, "the utility function is not up for grabs"; people's goals are what they are, and if it turns out that someone's goal actually is more about personal service than good results, well, you can't force them to change so let's just facilitate them to get good results while still achieving their core goal, to get a win-win outcome. It's plausible that their goals might also be achieved just as well without actually productively helping someone - so you might want to nudge them away from that and towards more productive means; but these nudges won't be effective without taking into account what their actual goals are and what types of "service that actually does help" are not valid options because they don't satisfy the goals of the potential helper.
- corty 6y ago
  "morally incompetent" yes, but morals are not the primary motivator in that situation, only a secondary factor. People want to feel good about themselves, moral behaviour leads to feeling good. But physical work, pride in your work, connection with your work and the people who benefit from it also make one feel good. It is basically like mothers' day cake: There is cake on sale that will be far better than what you can bake. But quality isn't the point, connection, pride and individualisation are.
- crispyambulance 6y ago
  Habitat for Humanity was never just "doing stuff yourself". It is an organized effort with decades of history. They also take donations and hire enough experienced contractors who ensure the work is done to code (I've volunteered before). The volunteer aspect is there so that people who don't have money but have time can give something. More fundamentally, there's a religious element to the "service" (that's why I put it in quotes). In Christianity, being near the poor and literally serving the poor is very much a spiritual act which is done not ONLY for the benefit of the poor but for the benefit of those who are serving them. This is decidedly NOT morally incompetent. I admit this isn't an ROI which would be seen as valid in the project management book of knowledge, but it's real for the people who believe it. The OP essay was just a sloppy way for a founder to justify his pivot-- which never actually needed justification. The actual justification for the pivot was simply the original idea, "Quirk", wasn't ever going to get vc funding and make a 100x - 1000x return. I think it's disingenuous to invoke the concept moral competence for what is ultimately a materialistic decision.

pdonis 6y ago

> "Service" is also a part of their mission The point of the article under discussion is that "service", if it just means "doing stuff yourself" without regard to how productive you actually are--how much you actually help--is a morally incompetent goal. If you have a feeling of service after productively helping someone, that's great. But if you have a feeling of service while the actual impact of what you did was negligible (or even negative), that's bad. So "service" can't be a goal just by itself; it has to be something like "service that actually does help".

PeterisP 6y ago
"service" definitely can be a goal just by itself - perhaps you can argue that it shouldn't be a goal by itself, but I think that it's undeniable that in certain cases it is a truthful, accurate description of a goal that some people have. And IMHO the "should" discussion is even not that relevant there because it does not change the values that people actually have. As people say regarding decision theory, "the utility function is not up for grabs"; people's goals are what they are, and if it turns out that someone's goal actually is more about personal service than good results, well, you can't force them to change so let's just facilitate them to get good results while still achieving their core goal, to get a win-win outcome. It's plausible that their goals might also be achieved just as well without actually productively helping someone - so you might want to nudge them away from that and towards more productive means; but these nudges won't be effective without taking into account what their actual goals are and what types of "service that actually does help" are not valid options because they don't satisfy the goals of the potential helper.
corty 6y ago
"morally incompetent" yes, but morals are not the primary motivator in that situation, only a secondary factor. People want to feel good about themselves, moral behaviour leads to feeling good. But physical work, pride in your work, connection with your work and the people who benefit from it also make one feel good. It is basically like mothers' day cake: There is cake on sale that will be far better than what you can bake. But quality isn't the point, connection, pride and individualisation are.
crispyambulance 6y ago
Habitat for Humanity was never just "doing stuff yourself". It is an organized effort with decades of history. They also take donations and hire enough experienced contractors who ensure the work is done to code (I've volunteered before). The volunteer aspect is there so that people who don't have money but have time can give something. More fundamentally, there's a religious element to the "service" (that's why I put it in quotes). In Christianity, being near the poor and literally serving the poor is very much a spiritual act which is done not ONLY for the benefit of the poor but for the benefit of those who are serving them. This is decidedly NOT morally incompetent. I admit this isn't an ROI which would be seen as valid in the project management book of knowledge, but it's real for the people who believe it. The OP essay was just a sloppy way for a founder to justify his pivot-- which never actually needed justification. The actual justification for the pivot was simply the original idea, "Quirk", wasn't ever going to get vc funding and make a 100x - 1000x return. I think it's disingenuous to invoke the concept moral competence for what is ultimately a materialistic decision.