4 ms·

> Why should I be asked to ignore my own family by annoying redditors who don't give a shit about me anyways? You shouldn't; doing so would be irrational. The

> Why should I be asked to ignore my own family by annoying redditors who don't give a shit about me anyways? You shouldn't; doing so would be irrational. There is a fairly decent chance that your relative, if they survive, will be in a position to help you in the future. But the random person on the other side of the planet? The chance of them randomly helping you in the future is about one in a few billion. Particularly if they don't know who their benefactor was, so they couldn't deliberately repay the favor to you. So the rational/selfish position is to always put family and friends first, before strangers.

zztop44 4y ago
That’s fine… but that’s _not the reason_, right? The reason is that you know the person and don’t want them to suffer. Trying to ignore that lived reality in a quest to be objective or rational seems to me like a recipe for mistaken thinking.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  It's not the reason, but it is a reason. The reason (for me) would be the principle of family coming first. But as is often the case, you can reconstruct deontological principles within a utilitarian framework. For instance; if everybody sticks to the principle of murder being wrong despite the consequences, then there will be fewer misguided mass murderers, and this is better for society in the long run than everybody going around committing murders they believe to be justified by some end.
wizofaus 4y ago
I don't know about "always", but yes, there's a strong rational element behind favouring friends and especially family, and in general others that you're more likely to interact with in the future. For one thing, I'd think confidence that you have family members that will ensure your children will thrive even after you're gone gives peace of mind for most parents. And even if I never actually need help from family or friends of the nature I give them now, the regular act of providing assistance is an important part of what maintains good relationships, which we all know are pretty vital to mental health etc. I would say though that giving money is probably not generally the best way to achieve that end, and EA are primarily (solely?) about monetary donations. Honestly I don't think there's any realistic way to decide in general whether giving assistance to person A vs person B is more "rational" or even more "effective", but it's good to at least be aware that some charities/NGOs/etc. are at least trustworthy and ensure a high % of donations do actively go towards providing help, rather being swallowed in marketing and admin budgets.
- joindpp 4y ago
  In defense of marketing and admin budgets. What would you prefer, a nonprofit where $100 of your donation goes to "providing help" (I don't really know what that means, since money alone can't do anything) or a nonprofit where $30 of your $100 is invested in "marketing and admin" which results in: - the charity has $500 - there are admin humans around to "provide help" (and you're paying them a decent or even above-average salary because you want them to do an amazing job, right?) What if they took $60 out of your $100 and turned it into $5,000 (not unheard of if they invest in digital ads to a warm list, for example) It's counterproductive to insist that nonprofits operate without operations budgets.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    I wouldn't consider 30% unreasonable or an example of money being swallowed - but there are known instances of non-profits where over 60% of donations go towards covering such costs (the Law Enforcement Legal Defense fund supposedly is one of the worst offenders).
  - xyzzy123 4y ago
    Yes, I think this is reasonable. I would also like to take a moment to reiterate why so many people are bitter about the marketing / admin angle: I pay them money. Charity pays consultants to turn that into more money (plus admins to manage the consultants). Consultants determine that a fraction of that money should be used to solicit more donations. Research indicates best source of new donations is in fact existing donors. At this point charity is spending money I gave them to extract further donations from me. The ice-cream cone is now licking itself :/

zztop44 4y ago

That’s fine… but that’s _not the reason_, right? The reason is that you know the person and don’t want them to suffer. Trying to ignore that lived reality in a quest to be objective or rational seems to me like a recipe for mistaken thinking.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
It's not the reason, but it is a reason. The reason (for me) would be the principle of family coming first. But as is often the case, you can reconstruct deontological principles within a utilitarian framework. For instance; if everybody sticks to the principle of murder being wrong despite the consequences, then there will be fewer misguided mass murderers, and this is better for society in the long run than everybody going around committing murders they believe to be justified by some end.

wizofaus 4y ago

I don't know about "always", but yes, there's a strong rational element behind favouring friends and especially family, and in general others that you're more likely to interact with in the future. For one thing, I'd think confidence that you have family members that will ensure your children will thrive even after you're gone gives peace of mind for most parents. And even if I never actually need help from family or friends of the nature I give them now, the regular act of providing assistance is an important part of what maintains good relationships, which we all know are pretty vital to mental health etc. I would say though that giving money is probably not generally the best way to achieve that end, and EA are primarily (solely?) about monetary donations. Honestly I don't think there's any realistic way to decide in general whether giving assistance to person A vs person B is more "rational" or even more "effective", but it's good to at least be aware that some charities/NGOs/etc. are at least trustworthy and ensure a high % of donations do actively go towards providing help, rather being swallowed in marketing and admin budgets.

joindpp 4y ago
In defense of marketing and admin budgets. What would you prefer, a nonprofit where $100 of your donation goes to "providing help" (I don't really know what that means, since money alone can't do anything) or a nonprofit where $30 of your $100 is invested in "marketing and admin" which results in: - the charity has $500 - there are admin humans around to "provide help" (and you're paying them a decent or even above-average salary because you want them to do an amazing job, right?) What if they took $60 out of your $100 and turned it into $5,000 (not unheard of if they invest in digital ads to a warm list, for example) It's counterproductive to insist that nonprofits operate without operations budgets.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  I wouldn't consider 30% unreasonable or an example of money being swallowed - but there are known instances of non-profits where over 60% of donations go towards covering such costs (the Law Enforcement Legal Defense fund supposedly is one of the worst offenders).
- xyzzy123 4y ago
  Yes, I think this is reasonable. I would also like to take a moment to reiterate why so many people are bitter about the marketing / admin angle: I pay them money. Charity pays consultants to turn that into more money (plus admins to manage the consultants). Consultants determine that a fraction of that money should be used to solicit more donations. Research indicates best source of new donations is in fact existing donors. At this point charity is spending money I gave them to extract further donations from me. The ice-cream cone is now licking itself :/