4 ms·

Not all philanthropy and charity are the same though. It's not all aimed through rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Which is not to say everyone should do that! Bu

Not all philanthropy and charity are the same though. It's not all aimed through rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Which is not to say everyone should do that! But there's a difference between caring a lot about quantified impact and being guided by more qualitative considerations. What's the word to describe the difference? Quantitative altruism? Moneyball philanthropy? Maybe you feel we don't need a word. But I find it odd, and kind of suspicious, when we insist we can't give a distinct name to something that is clearly a thing.

wahern 4y ago
> But there's a difference between caring a lot about quantified impact and being guided by more qualitative considerations. What's the word to describe the difference? Sure, if you needed a term to categorize. We can build ontologies (and identities) all day if we want. But I ask this: can you quantify the difference between a qualitative vs quantitative emphasis in charity work? Point being: I'm not sure the distinction has much substance or utility. If one's aims are merely to feel good, without any concern for concrete, identifiable impacts, that doesn't fit the definition of altruism or charity or philanthropy. And with mixed motives (as they always are), it's really only the selfless aspect that counts as any of those when we're being pedantic. Even the tax code recognizes this--something is a charitable deduction only to the extent you don't personally derive value from it, and the deduction value is (in principle) the actual value imparted. But if being able to identify as an "effective altruist" motivates more people to perform more charity, then who am I to argue ;)
- inkblotuniverse 4y ago
  A charity organization that converts 70% of the money you give it into e.g. saved human lives is better than one that converts 5%. EA was inspired by the observation that most people don't know where their money is going when they give it to charity.

wahern 4y ago

> But there's a difference between caring a lot about quantified impact and being guided by more qualitative considerations. What's the word to describe the difference? Sure, if you needed a term to categorize. We can build ontologies (and identities) all day if we want. But I ask this: can you quantify the difference between a qualitative vs quantitative emphasis in charity work? Point being: I'm not sure the distinction has much substance or utility. If one's aims are merely to feel good, without any concern for concrete, identifiable impacts, that doesn't fit the definition of altruism or charity or philanthropy. And with mixed motives (as they always are), it's really only the selfless aspect that counts as any of those when we're being pedantic. Even the tax code recognizes this--something is a charitable deduction only to the extent you don't personally derive value from it, and the deduction value is (in principle) the actual value imparted. But if being able to identify as an "effective altruist" motivates more people to perform more charity, then who am I to argue ;)

inkblotuniverse 4y ago
A charity organization that converts 70% of the money you give it into e.g. saved human lives is better than one that converts 5%. EA was inspired by the observation that most people don't know where their money is going when they give it to charity.