3 ms·

Sorry, I'm confused as to what you mean by a mugging? Genuinely not sure what you meant by that. Anyways, I never said any specifics about where this community

Sorry, I'm confused as to what you mean by a mugging? Genuinely not sure what you meant by that. Anyways, I never said any specifics about where this community theater is being built. I don't know where heat stroke came from. Sure, yeah, in the straw man situation of building a community theater in an extremely hot area, where the only labor is teenagers, I would...not enlist teenagers to build a community theater in an extremely hot area? I don't want to be dismissive of your comment but I genuinely don't know what's the point here.

JamesBarney 4y ago
The point is you wouldn't endanger the lives of teenagers to build a community theater because you believe the lives of teenagers are more valuable than a community theater. But repairing a community theater could easily cost $100,000 which would save the lives of ~22 people in Guinea if donated to certain bed net charities. And even the most die hard theater fans probably wouldn't save a theater if to do so it would require risking 22 lives for. So in this case quantification isn't failing, it's succeeding. It's correctly telling us which donations are more effective. And all our intuition agrees that the $100,000 theater is worth less than the 22 lives.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  No. This ignores the effect of donating locally and helping local causes. Your comparison does not account for global differences in needs.
- blitzar 4y ago
  But the theatre has a chance of spawning a future movie star who also has a chance of being an EA advocate. Directly through their $50million movie paycheques they will be saving 10,000 lives at a future date. Thus by chosing to repair the community theatre you are directly causing the death of 9,978 people.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  The same argument means that any luxury that any person indulges in. Let’s say thanksgiving, christmas, craft beer, VR headset, calling their mother, etc. is costing X lives (X is not necessary integer) and so isn’t the rationalist thing to do. “Ah bit they are luxuries, distinct from charity…” Ok then give me the luxury of donating to the local theatre!
  - awsdasdasd 4y ago
    Effective alturism vs luxury alturism?
    - quickthrower2 4y ago
      Yes I guess!
  - xorfish 4y ago
    I think this is fitting in that context: Schindler's List | "I Didn't Do Enough" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9vj2Wf57rQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9vj2Wf57rQ In the end, nearly everyone values their life higher than the life of others. The more distant that the "others" are the less we value them.
_yb2s 4y ago
Pascal’s mugging is a popular thought experiment amongst rationalists and EA people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging

JamesBarney 4y ago

The point is you wouldn't endanger the lives of teenagers to build a community theater because you believe the lives of teenagers are more valuable than a community theater. But repairing a community theater could easily cost $100,000 which would save the lives of ~22 people in Guinea if donated to certain bed net charities. And even the most die hard theater fans probably wouldn't save a theater if to do so it would require risking 22 lives for. So in this case quantification isn't failing, it's succeeding. It's correctly telling us which donations are more effective. And all our intuition agrees that the $100,000 theater is worth less than the 22 lives.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
No. This ignores the effect of donating locally and helping local causes. Your comparison does not account for global differences in needs.
blitzar 4y ago
But the theatre has a chance of spawning a future movie star who also has a chance of being an EA advocate. Directly through their $50million movie paycheques they will be saving 10,000 lives at a future date. Thus by chosing to repair the community theatre you are directly causing the death of 9,978 people.
quickthrower2 4y ago
The same argument means that any luxury that any person indulges in. Let’s say thanksgiving, christmas, craft beer, VR headset, calling their mother, etc. is costing X lives (X is not necessary integer) and so isn’t the rationalist thing to do. “Ah bit they are luxuries, distinct from charity…” Ok then give me the luxury of donating to the local theatre!
- awsdasdasd 4y ago
  Effective alturism vs luxury alturism?
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    Yes I guess!
- xorfish 4y ago
  I think this is fitting in that context: Schindler's List | "I Didn't Do Enough" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9vj2Wf57rQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9vj2Wf57rQ In the end, nearly everyone values their life higher than the life of others. The more distant that the "others" are the less we value them.

_yb2s 4y ago

Pascal’s mugging is a popular thought experiment amongst rationalists and EA people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging