4 ms·
I draw a distinction between a particular charitable organization being effective, i.e. the amount spent on overhead vs going to cause they claim to support and
by imgabe 4y ago
I draw a distinction between a particular charitable organization being effective, i.e. the amount spent on overhead vs going to cause they claim to support and a particular charitable cause itself being effective (mosquito nets vs. community theater).
For the former I agree, seek out charities that most effectively support what you want to support.
For the latter, I don't think it's worthwhile to deride people for supporting a cause just because you think there's some other cause that might technically result in more living humans. Raw population is not a worthwhile metric to optimize for. People should be free to support things they care about and believe make the world a better place as long as it's not harming anyone.
- FeepingCreature 4y agoI still think there is a fundamental internal inconsistency here. I agree that people will, for instance, hold the moral belief that their community theater is worth more than five foreign lives. However, explicitly espousing this belief is politically unviable. The "common knowledge" moral view is that all humans are of equal moral worth. EA, as I understand it, is largely pursued by people who internalize this view; who recognize the mismatch and as a result, will prefer to sacrifice their community theater rather than admit inconsistency.