3 ms·
A few paragraphs in > infused with logic so cold that even Mr. Spock would cringe upon hearing it > By contrast, defective altruism is [...] an approach that
by tomcatfish 4y ago
A few paragraphs in
> infused with logic so cold that even Mr. Spock would cringe upon hearing it
> By contrast, defective altruism is [...] an approach that [...] implements this bold claim by weighing causes and beneficiaries against one another.
> Which is the “better” thing to do? To provide a guide dog to one blind American, or cure 2,000 people of blindness in developing countries? [...] it was obvious which choice Singer thought was the “better” of the two; indeed, he said the choice was “clear.”
We get it, the author doesn't like comparing things using numbers. I'm not going to try to convince them they should feel otherwise, but I am going to note that an article titled "You Can't Compare Moral Things With Numbers" would have been more relevant, less inflammatory, and less likely to get accused of being mean.
I've got more complaints, but they feel nitpickier than this one, and would probably be eaten in the transfer from this article to the suggested, so I'll consider them support for the above instead of separate points.
- zozbot234 4y agoI'm pretty sure that the authors would support curing 200 Americans of blindness over providing one of them with a guide dog, so their only workable objection to Singer's scenario is that people in the developing world are somehow less salient to them. Does it make sense for that different salience to outweigh a plausible 10x factor in effectiveness? For that matter, plenty of donors don't even bother to pick causes that are locally effective; they fund frivolous pursuits such as art galleries and the like. (Which is why Open Philanthropy Project, among other EA orgs, tries to also identify good oppprtunities that would be relevant to the U.S. - such as pandemic preparedness, or policy work on reforming criminal justice.)
- gnramires 4y agoAlso, the point of EA is not just numbers. Numbers are a tool to help make you the most ethical, rational judgement, to help the most. If you could provide a convincing rational, ethically coherent argument that (if we have a binary choice) we should choose 1 guide dog over curing 2000 people of blindness, we should accept it. When speaking of large evils, and large impacts, I don't see how you could build an argument without numbers to support any decision, that wouldn't be obtuse, incoherent, unfounded. The only problem with numbers is oversimplification: when you use some metric (it could even be lives saved) without taking into account more complex factors like quality of life. Of course, when you can cheaply cure a person of blindness, save a man's life or address extreme poverty (hunger, lack of education, sanitary and material conditions), that seems to overwhelm fine considerations or quality of life... addressing extreme poverty is the first step in providing a rich and good life (and we should be always mindful of such goals).