4 ms·
> like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad, because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent
by AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
> like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad, because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent making money
This is the part of EA that triggers a lot of red flags for me. Making money, or rather making significant money, necessitates participation in a system of exploitation that is largely responsible for the ills the charitable donations are meant to alleviate in the first place. Maximizing that money necessitates optimizing the exploitation.
the whole thing just seems like an exercise in morality-washing one's own greed. Lies, damn lies, and statistics perpetrated with "rationality".
- edanm 4y ago> This is the part of EA that triggers a lot of red flags for me. Making money, or rather making significant money, necessitates participation in a system of exploitation that is largely responsible for the ills the charitable donations are meant to alleviate in the first place. I mean, given that you think that I understand where you're coming from. But just note that many, many people would highly disagree with that characterization. I don't think our "system", whatever that means, is evil. I think it's pretty good, definitely better than other things people have come up with. And I don't think you need to give to charity to morality-wash greed. I think it's just the right thing to do.
- skinnymuch 4y agoYou missed the major point of being the exact capitalists that are the reason for charity to be so necessary. That’s white washing greed and self interest. Get to have a better life selfishly then donate the money to be morally better.
- edanm 4y agoNo I didn't miss the point. I disagree with it. Looking at other countries that don't have capitalism, everyone is worse off. I don't think capitalism is the reason charity is necessary. I think the world starts default-bad for humans, by default we don't have anywhere close to the living we want, and over the years, many technological advanacements, including capitalism, have slowly made most humans far better off. This is fairly clear in the historical record or in comparing different countries. (At least to me. Most people seem to disagree with this, but I honestly think they're wrong.)
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago> Looking at other countries that don't have capitalism, everyone is worse off. Interesting that all I talked about was a system of exploitation and your mind immediately filled in 'capitalism'. I think there are many countries that temper capitalism with socialist ideals and people are not worse off than the more unfettered variety practiced in the US.
- edanm 4y ago> Interesting that all I talked about was a system of exploitation and your mind immediately filled in 'capitalism'. That's not what happened. When I answered you I wrote "the system". I answered skinnymuch's post about capitalism, because they themselves talked about capitalism. But out of curiosity - what "system" exactly did you have in mind? > I think there are many countries that temper capitalism with socialist ideals and people are not worse off than the more unfettered variety practiced in the US. Who said anything about the US?
- skinnymuch 4y agoThe point as the OP is saying as well is that people are being unfairly exploited in capitalism. You went along with agreeing with me by arguing about capitalism which is what I called the system of exploitation as said by the OP.
- zajio1am 4y agoWell, without capitalism everyone would live in subsistence-level poverty, but it would be a social norm, so no charity would be necessary.