3 ms·

How do you interpret the sentence "we should strongly consider how much effort we devote to this"? A number of comments (on Reddit and Substack, besides yours)

How do you interpret the sentence "we should strongly consider how much effort we devote to this"? A number of comments (on Reddit and Substack, besides yours) take issue with it, but I can't seem to figure out what it even means, let alone how it's objectionable.

Imnimo 4y ago
I interpret it to mean something like, "you should put a lot of thought into figuring out what the best way to allocate your personal charitable donations is." I draw a contrast against other approaches to charity which are basically "give your money to big-name organizations that seem to know what they're doing and don't worry too much about it". It's the idea that a core (it's in the base of the tower, after all!) part of your approach to charity should be trying to work out a moral calculus that lets you compare one donation to another and decide which is best.
- cormorant 4y ago
  OK, I see. I tried again to parse it. It's awkward wording, but the "this" has to refer to "helping other people", as the previous sentence is "We should help other people." So then it means "We should strongly consider how much effort we devote to helping other people". Paraphrased, I interpret that to mean, "We should ask ourselves whether we do enough to help other people". Only in the next sentence do we get to "Some methods of helping people are more effective than others." Only after that in the chain of logic could come the idea "we should put a lot of thought into figuring out which methods are more/most effective". I'd say that the latter idea is presented as being in the next level of the tower, stated as "Utilitarian calculus (eg QALYs)".
  - Imnimo 4y ago
    Your interpretation also seems reasonable to me. I would say that "utilitarian calculus" in the second level represents possible disagreements over what the best calculus is, like "is measuring QALYs a good idea or should we measure something else?". I think "we should put a lot of thought into figuring out which methods are more/most effective" is in the first level, but the specific conclusion you reach through that thought is in the second level.

Imnimo 4y ago

I interpret it to mean something like, "you should put a lot of thought into figuring out what the best way to allocate your personal charitable donations is." I draw a contrast against other approaches to charity which are basically "give your money to big-name organizations that seem to know what they're doing and don't worry too much about it". It's the idea that a core (it's in the base of the tower, after all!) part of your approach to charity should be trying to work out a moral calculus that lets you compare one donation to another and decide which is best.

cormorant 4y ago
OK, I see. I tried again to parse it. It's awkward wording, but the "this" has to refer to "helping other people", as the previous sentence is "We should help other people." So then it means "We should strongly consider how much effort we devote to helping other people". Paraphrased, I interpret that to mean, "We should ask ourselves whether we do enough to help other people". Only in the next sentence do we get to "Some methods of helping people are more effective than others." Only after that in the chain of logic could come the idea "we should put a lot of thought into figuring out which methods are more/most effective". I'd say that the latter idea is presented as being in the next level of the tower, stated as "Utilitarian calculus (eg QALYs)".
- Imnimo 4y ago
  Your interpretation also seems reasonable to me. I would say that "utilitarian calculus" in the second level represents possible disagreements over what the best calculus is, like "is measuring QALYs a good idea or should we measure something else?". I think "we should put a lot of thought into figuring out which methods are more/most effective" is in the first level, but the specific conclusion you reach through that thought is in the second level.