3 ms·
How did it fall short?
by nuclearnice1 4y ago
How did it fall short?
- kristianov 4y agoIt justifies doing bad things for "the greater good".
- mikeyouse 4y agoSaw it referred to as "Indulgences for billionaires" which seems apt.
- unyttigfjelltol 4y agoMaximizing earnings by any means is verifiably not effectively altruistic, because if everyone did this... no one would ever engage in true charitable causes. Young people would compete simply to rip off the gullibility of older people looking to scratch the charitable itch.
- codefreeordie 4y agoIt is purely people justifying doing the evil things they personally desire by claiming some unverifiable benefit that accrues to hypothetical future people who may never even exist.
- kmeisthax 4y agoAaaand this is why time discounts exist and are steep. Not because we are incapable of or unwilling to comprehend future rewards, but because we don't know if they'll come to pass. It's a dampening parameter - if you don't do it, you fall prey to Basilisks.
- onetimeusename 4y agoidk if it's all bad, I remember reading about it maybe a decade ago when rationalists talked about it. Like one good idea is donating to charities that are more efficient. But it seems like mostly BS wrapped up in mathematics to make it seem more rational. Some assumptions are not necessarily true but if you disagreed then you were immoral and irrational. It also comes with a form of very elitist virtue signalling like forming clubs where people bloviate about this. Also a problem with charity, especially in the US, is as the IRS defines it, it's not necessarily charitable. So it's easy to confuse altruism with plain old politics, vanity, and for-profit business disguised as a tax-exempt and then argue that anyone that disagree is not rational.