5 ms·
With $10 million, you could do something like directly save the lives of more than 10,000 children from death [http://www.givewell.org/international/top-chariti
by rms 15y ago
With $10 million, you could do something like directly save the lives of more than 10,000 children from death [http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/villagereach http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/villager...] or stop a whole lot of tuberculosis [http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/stop-tb http://www.givewell.org/international/top-charities/stop-tb]. At a certain point your time is less important than what you could have done with the extra money.
- Vivtek 15y agoWhy does what I could have done with the money justify how I chose to spend the time? I see this meme occasionally nowadays, implying that it is my sad duty to become rich because of all the philanthropy I could engage in, and I don't trust it. No offense meant; I'm sure you mean it sincerely.
- mwhite 15y agohttps://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Famine,_Affluence,_and_Morality https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Famine,_Afflu...
- Vivtek 15y agoNo, you mistake me. While I couldn't put Singer's name to it, I'm quite familiar with his argument. But this familiar argument is subtly modified in this case: not "if you're rich you're obligated to aid", but rather "if you have the chance to become rich, then you are obligated to become rich so that you can aid". Regardless of whether that's truly your goal, and regardless of the personal cost to yourself, which is why I don't like it. I suspect it's often used as a rationalization for becoming rich. Either way, I don't trust it.
- tluyben2 15y agoYeah, so you work 24/7 at 4 jobs to give 70% to charity? As your time is less important than what you can do with the extra money?