6 ms·

Other than not donating any of it, he made the right call. The fact that the winner still has the money after 10 years is evidence he took the correct course.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
I would not consider not donating to be wrong, or donating to necessarily be right.
- jnwatson 5y ago
  Bioethicist/philosopher Peter Singer disagrees. "if you are living comfortably while others are hungry or dying from easily preventable diseases, and you are doing nothing about it, there is something wrong with your behavior." [1] I'm inclined to agree with him. This is my current moral quandry, since my income is about to dramatically increase. I'm looking for a new car. I can pay in cash. I could pay $90K for a Porsche, or $20K for a used Honda and donate $70K to Doctors without Borders. (I don't drive much, so the difference in environmental impact is negligible.) This is not theoretical. People in Haiti are dying just 1400 miles away, and $70K could really help. 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/charity/duty_1.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/charity/duty_1.shtml
  - cf100clunk 5y ago
    The donor's dilemma: to whom when so many are needy? I'd suggest donating to a reputable agreggator, such as the United Way or Red Cross.
    - vymague 5y ago
      And there's the usual claim that many charities are super corrupt. Yes, there are lists of "good" charities. But you know.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    Funny how Peter Singer condemns comfort while living comfortably enough to have the time to write and publish a dozen books [1]. That time could've really helped a lot of people. Wonder what his thoughts on hypocrisy are. For me, other people's problems aren't my problem. If I won a billion dollars I'd probably donate to things generously out of mild interest in trying to make the world more to my liking, but that's about it. Not my fault if others are suffering, nor is it my fault if I get lucky some day. In my experience I've found that the more of a martyr someone tries to be, having a boat and trying to save others from drowning, the more they end up just being another body in the water, leaving the world worse off than if they had helped less. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Publications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Publications
    - robotresearcher 5y ago
      > For me, other people's problems aren't my problem. If your luck runs out, we'll be here to help you.
      - silicon2401 5y ago
        I highly doubt that you, specifically, or any other commenter in this thread will do anything to help me if I run into trouble. And if one were willing to do something, I would hope that they'd choose to channel their help towards someone their know deserves it like a loved one; not me, who as far as you know could just make up a fake sob story to con selfless strangers on the internet.
        robotresearcher 5y ago
        Too late, we probably already paid for your K-12 education.
        silicon2401 5y ago
        I'm not sure what your point is. I'm happy to benefit from others. If others are happy when I benefit from them then that's great for them, but I don't care much one way or another unless it's a loved one.
  - robotresearcher 5y ago
    This is an age-old concern, and there's a traditional approach: tithing. Automatically donate 10% of your after-tax income to a charity you believe in. Then stop thinking about it except in special emergencies. Tune the percentage as you wish, but make that decision once (or infrequently) and keep it out of your daily anxieties.
    - jnwatson 5y ago
      10% seems appropriate for those of limited means. I'm not sure it applies to those of us more fortunate.
      - robotresearcher 5y ago
        Sure. But 10% is what 'tithe' means. Tweak to suit.
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        Yes, but you can spend your whole life worrying about appropriate amount to donate, without donating anything in the meantime. 10% is a good start. If you think it's too little, you can adjust upwards later. While you're making up your mind, you'll still be giving that 10%!
  - prewett 5y ago
    Think of spending $70k in Haiti (for example) as investing in the Society of Haiti, Inc.: what level of the problem would you like to address? Buying food will help people eat right now, but will not solve their long-term problem (unless it's truly just short-term). On the other hand, long-term thinking is unhelpful if they die of starvation first, so you need both. You could also invest through an organization that teaches Haitians skills that let them earn more than subsistence farming would. You could invest through an organization that (re)built homes and buildings. You could invest through an organization that drills wells to provide clean water. In a discussion a few weeks ago on Haiti here, one post compared the Dominican Republic and Haiti and noticed that Haitians were unwilling to learn (to overly summarize) and insisted on patterns of belief and thinking that keep them in poverty; you can invest through an organization that attempts to change culture. You could use the money to take six months off work (theoretically speaking) and volunteer in Haiti personally. I think you'll be happier about your decision if you are investing in an area you really feel benefits, e.g. Haitians. I also think you'll be happier about the decision if you decide how much money you want to invest, rather than doing it out of guilt or from a reason-based ideological imperative.
    - jnwatson 5y ago
      I'm not a fan of the charity tourism thing. Unless I have some special skill that's in demand in the area, I'm literally taking somebody else's (probably low-wage) job and doing it for free. I'm sure I'd feel good about it, but I'm not optimizing for my emotional fulfillment. Certainly the selection of charity is a huge issue and is worthy of careful thought and research, but I think a bigger issue to me is how much to donate. I already live beneath my means, but I could go a lot lower. I could get a roommate, I could get a cheaper place. I could work more hours at a second job. Especially as I approach the one percenter territory, the degrees of freedom between living like a king and a pauper seem daunting.
  - ahtihn 5y ago
    Unknown people in far away countries don't matter at all. Might as well put the money on fire, the outcome would be about the same. There's probably enough people in your local community that need help of some sort where you could make an actual difference.
    - jnwatson 5y ago
      "Unknown people in far away countries don't matter at all." Citation needed.
    - s5300 5y ago
      What goes wrong in ones life to end up with a mindset like this. If what you say is true, then you too very much don't matter at all, and the billionaires should quickly exterminate you as you're simply a waste of the planets finite resource of which they require.
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  If one is extraordinarily wealthy and never uses any of their resources to help others, that is rather fucked up in my opinion. And I will even take a pretty broad view of “helping others”. But one should have put some real thought into it and sincerely believe in whatever approach they are taking. Of course, you need to take of your own basic human needs as well. Which is sometimes easier said than done, even with immense wealth.
  - throw123123123 5y ago
    Why? What is the consequences of having a resource and not spending it?
    - dwaltrip 5y ago
      It's just my opinion of how people should strive to live. I also would wager that the person sharing the resource will get great joy out of seeing others benefit from the sharing. A little bit of thoughtful sharing goes a long way, for both the giver and the receiver. Why do I feel this way? That's a complicated question that I don't fully have the answer to. It probably has something to do with how humans are a social animal that has evolved to depend on each other for survival.
jstummbillig 5y ago
Well, if conserving money is your goal then any course you took to conserve money is self-evidently a correct one. The more interesting questions are if and why money conservation to this extent would be desirable. Neither is self-evident to me – but, admittedly, also not terribly interesting.
cf100clunk 5y ago
Donating is not necessarily an ethical "must", as it is entirely possible to continue being true to one's ethical principles while sitting on a huge stash of money, but from a philosophical perspective I'd say that "easy come, easy go" is as good as any a principle for releasing some of that cash towards those entities that align with one's aformentioned ethical principles. The money was neither earned nor owed for services rendered, yet there it sits, unused and inaccessible.
dougmwne 5y ago
I have worked in the nonprofit industry for 10 years. People with money have no moral obligation to give me money. The way the organizations I work with spend the money is about what you would expect for a business with no real economic incentive to be efficient or solve the advertised problem. Lots of politics, lots of waste, lots of egos. I will never steward your life savings to improve the world as well as you would have stewarded it yourself. If you have resources and want to "give back" find ways to give back to the people and community around you. You can't outsource your goodness to some else. There are good organizations out there of course. If you are in a position to give a large gift to a nonprofit, please do your research and use the principals of effective philanthropy.
- hanniabu 5y ago
  If someone wanted to donate, which are the top organizations you'd recommend and which are the top ones you'd avoid given your knowledge on efficiency and grifting?
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    GiveWell and other "Effective Altruist" organizations are generally the most widely-trusted source for these recommendations. If you're OK with their starting principles and assumptions (which you should familiarize yourself with!) they seem pretty solid overall.
  - nazgulnarsil 5y ago
    As other commenter mentioned, EA is a useful framework for thinking about giving (what is my dollar really buying and is that a step change in something like foundational research). But don't give to the mainstream EA causes, they already are sitting on billions. Find small groups of people doing speculative stuff and fund them for exploratory research.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      > But don't give to the mainstream EA causes, they already are sitting on billions. I have to partially disagree with this, because EA organizations do select causes with a decent amount of "room" for more funding. It hardly matters that they're getting billions, your money will still easily contribute 100× or plausibly 1000× to society-wide benefit compared to just spending it on yourself. Of course some people might be aware of some kind of neglected opportunity with even larger returns, but that's surely not that typical. And efforts like the Open Philanthropy Project exist to focus on higher-variance causes than what GiveWell deals with, that for this reason might not appeal to mainstream donors.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

I would not consider not donating to be wrong, or donating to necessarily be right.

jnwatson 5y ago
Bioethicist/philosopher Peter Singer disagrees. "if you are living comfortably while others are hungry or dying from easily preventable diseases, and you are doing nothing about it, there is something wrong with your behavior." [1] I'm inclined to agree with him. This is my current moral quandry, since my income is about to dramatically increase. I'm looking for a new car. I can pay in cash. I could pay $90K for a Porsche, or $20K for a used Honda and donate $70K to Doctors without Borders. (I don't drive much, so the difference in environmental impact is negligible.) This is not theoretical. People in Haiti are dying just 1400 miles away, and $70K could really help. 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/charity/duty_1.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/charity/duty_1.shtml
- cf100clunk 5y ago
  The donor's dilemma: to whom when so many are needy? I'd suggest donating to a reputable agreggator, such as the United Way or Red Cross.
  - vymague 5y ago
    And there's the usual claim that many charities are super corrupt. Yes, there are lists of "good" charities. But you know.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  Funny how Peter Singer condemns comfort while living comfortably enough to have the time to write and publish a dozen books [1]. That time could've really helped a lot of people. Wonder what his thoughts on hypocrisy are. For me, other people's problems aren't my problem. If I won a billion dollars I'd probably donate to things generously out of mild interest in trying to make the world more to my liking, but that's about it. Not my fault if others are suffering, nor is it my fault if I get lucky some day. In my experience I've found that the more of a martyr someone tries to be, having a boat and trying to save others from drowning, the more they end up just being another body in the water, leaving the world worse off than if they had helped less. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Publications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Publications
  - robotresearcher 5y ago
    > For me, other people's problems aren't my problem. If your luck runs out, we'll be here to help you.
    - silicon2401 5y ago
      I highly doubt that you, specifically, or any other commenter in this thread will do anything to help me if I run into trouble. And if one were willing to do something, I would hope that they'd choose to channel their help towards someone their know deserves it like a loved one; not me, who as far as you know could just make up a fake sob story to con selfless strangers on the internet.
      - robotresearcher 5y ago
        Too late, we probably already paid for your K-12 education.
        silicon2401 5y ago
        I'm not sure what your point is. I'm happy to benefit from others. If others are happy when I benefit from them then that's great for them, but I don't care much one way or another unless it's a loved one.
- robotresearcher 5y ago
  This is an age-old concern, and there's a traditional approach: tithing. Automatically donate 10% of your after-tax income to a charity you believe in. Then stop thinking about it except in special emergencies. Tune the percentage as you wish, but make that decision once (or infrequently) and keep it out of your daily anxieties.
  - jnwatson 5y ago
    10% seems appropriate for those of limited means. I'm not sure it applies to those of us more fortunate.
    - robotresearcher 5y ago
      Sure. But 10% is what 'tithe' means. Tweak to suit.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      Yes, but you can spend your whole life worrying about appropriate amount to donate, without donating anything in the meantime. 10% is a good start. If you think it's too little, you can adjust upwards later. While you're making up your mind, you'll still be giving that 10%!
- prewett 5y ago
  Think of spending $70k in Haiti (for example) as investing in the Society of Haiti, Inc.: what level of the problem would you like to address? Buying food will help people eat right now, but will not solve their long-term problem (unless it's truly just short-term). On the other hand, long-term thinking is unhelpful if they die of starvation first, so you need both. You could also invest through an organization that teaches Haitians skills that let them earn more than subsistence farming would. You could invest through an organization that (re)built homes and buildings. You could invest through an organization that drills wells to provide clean water. In a discussion a few weeks ago on Haiti here, one post compared the Dominican Republic and Haiti and noticed that Haitians were unwilling to learn (to overly summarize) and insisted on patterns of belief and thinking that keep them in poverty; you can invest through an organization that attempts to change culture. You could use the money to take six months off work (theoretically speaking) and volunteer in Haiti personally. I think you'll be happier about your decision if you are investing in an area you really feel benefits, e.g. Haitians. I also think you'll be happier about the decision if you decide how much money you want to invest, rather than doing it out of guilt or from a reason-based ideological imperative.
  - jnwatson 5y ago
    I'm not a fan of the charity tourism thing. Unless I have some special skill that's in demand in the area, I'm literally taking somebody else's (probably low-wage) job and doing it for free. I'm sure I'd feel good about it, but I'm not optimizing for my emotional fulfillment. Certainly the selection of charity is a huge issue and is worthy of careful thought and research, but I think a bigger issue to me is how much to donate. I already live beneath my means, but I could go a lot lower. I could get a roommate, I could get a cheaper place. I could work more hours at a second job. Especially as I approach the one percenter territory, the degrees of freedom between living like a king and a pauper seem daunting.
- ahtihn 5y ago
  Unknown people in far away countries don't matter at all. Might as well put the money on fire, the outcome would be about the same. There's probably enough people in your local community that need help of some sort where you could make an actual difference.
  - jnwatson 5y ago
    "Unknown people in far away countries don't matter at all." Citation needed.
  - s5300 5y ago
    What goes wrong in ones life to end up with a mindset like this. If what you say is true, then you too very much don't matter at all, and the billionaires should quickly exterminate you as you're simply a waste of the planets finite resource of which they require.
dwaltrip 5y ago
If one is extraordinarily wealthy and never uses any of their resources to help others, that is rather fucked up in my opinion. And I will even take a pretty broad view of “helping others”. But one should have put some real thought into it and sincerely believe in whatever approach they are taking. Of course, you need to take of your own basic human needs as well. Which is sometimes easier said than done, even with immense wealth.
- throw123123123 5y ago
  Why? What is the consequences of having a resource and not spending it?
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    It's just my opinion of how people should strive to live. I also would wager that the person sharing the resource will get great joy out of seeing others benefit from the sharing. A little bit of thoughtful sharing goes a long way, for both the giver and the receiver. Why do I feel this way? That's a complicated question that I don't fully have the answer to. It probably has something to do with how humans are a social animal that has evolved to depend on each other for survival.

jstummbillig 5y ago

Well, if conserving money is your goal then any course you took to conserve money is self-evidently a correct one. The more interesting questions are if and why money conservation to this extent would be desirable. Neither is self-evident to me – but, admittedly, also not terribly interesting.

cf100clunk 5y ago

Donating is not necessarily an ethical "must", as it is entirely possible to continue being true to one's ethical principles while sitting on a huge stash of money, but from a philosophical perspective I'd say that "easy come, easy go" is as good as any a principle for releasing some of that cash towards those entities that align with one's aformentioned ethical principles. The money was neither earned nor owed for services rendered, yet there it sits, unused and inaccessible.

dougmwne 5y ago

I have worked in the nonprofit industry for 10 years. People with money have no moral obligation to give me money. The way the organizations I work with spend the money is about what you would expect for a business with no real economic incentive to be efficient or solve the advertised problem. Lots of politics, lots of waste, lots of egos. I will never steward your life savings to improve the world as well as you would have stewarded it yourself. If you have resources and want to "give back" find ways to give back to the people and community around you. You can't outsource your goodness to some else. There are good organizations out there of course. If you are in a position to give a large gift to a nonprofit, please do your research and use the principals of effective philanthropy.

hanniabu 5y ago
If someone wanted to donate, which are the top organizations you'd recommend and which are the top ones you'd avoid given your knowledge on efficiency and grifting?
- zozbot234 5y ago
  GiveWell and other "Effective Altruist" organizations are generally the most widely-trusted source for these recommendations. If you're OK with their starting principles and assumptions (which you should familiarize yourself with!) they seem pretty solid overall.
- nazgulnarsil 5y ago
  As other commenter mentioned, EA is a useful framework for thinking about giving (what is my dollar really buying and is that a step change in something like foundational research). But don't give to the mainstream EA causes, they already are sitting on billions. Find small groups of people doing speculative stuff and fund them for exploratory research.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > But don't give to the mainstream EA causes, they already are sitting on billions. I have to partially disagree with this, because EA organizations do select causes with a decent amount of "room" for more funding. It hardly matters that they're getting billions, your money will still easily contribute 100× or plausibly 1000× to society-wide benefit compared to just spending it on yourself. Of course some people might be aware of some kind of neglected opportunity with even larger returns, but that's surely not that typical. And efforts like the Open Philanthropy Project exist to focus on higher-variance causes than what GiveWell deals with, that for this reason might not appeal to mainstream donors.