4 ms·

> This has been studied again and again. Our motivation to help is because we know the neighbour, because someone is in trouble, because I would like someone to

> This has been studied again and again. Our motivation to help is because we know the neighbour, because someone is in trouble, because I would like someone to do it for me in the same situation... and other things like that. Not sure what studies you are referring to but this strikes me as obviously untrue. The vast majority of charitable giving is to help people who aren't your neighbors.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
I think you are confusing two: topics charitable giving in general versus willingness to help an individual. I think this is a common mistake and both points are correct. People are more willing to help an single individual they know than a single stranger. They may also give more to stranger(s) in aggregate than people that they know, but there hey hell of a lot more strangers in the world than people you know. for example, I would give a lot of time and money to help a sick family member, but I wouldn't give that to a single stranger. I you want to talk about willingness to help individuals, I also think your numbers on charitable giving are incorrect. Charitable numbers are defined and biased to measure giving to strangers, as they look at tax deductable donations. If you wanted to look at all financial help given, a more appropriate measure would be money given to strangers versus family. For the latter, you'd have to measure all the money parents spend on children and inheritance. I strongly suspect that people give their family spouses and children much more money over the course of their lives and at time of death. This is where people usually object to strong utilitarian giving. Most people strongly react to the idea that they should spend more money on strangers than their children, because it would do more good for the strangers. The strong utilitarian position is that the moral action would be to save lives in the third world instead of giving your kids birthday presents, paying for their schooling, or giving them your house when you die. From a certain perspective they are right. the problem is that utilitarians often make the good the enemy of the perfect. Sub optimal help still leads to a better world. doing good, but imperfectly is not immoral.
- germandiago 4y ago
  > doing good, but imperfectly is not immoral It is not this that is immoral. What is immoral is that a guy that has nothing to offer except extracting resources from the effort of others coactively decides where the money goes without you being involved in the process and paying no penalty for the bad decisions. This is not a good system. It is the worst possible system. It is much better to dive in your own money, literally and say "what am I doing with all this?" -> going to open a factory in the 3rd world and hire people. Because in this case there is mutual cooperation, something strong, solid, that will not break easily: people improve their lives, both sides benefit. This kind of state charity in a loop of we always need more for the poor is a failure, many times it does not solve the problem, and it creates an incentive to have poor people, needless to say some policies that perpetuate people receiving them there. I always say that a social help is not a success, it is the reflect of a failure. The fewer we need, the better we are doing. But for that you need individuals with a minimal level of self-reliance and ambition.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Im not sure I follow your entire post, Are you critiquing FTX, the government, or both? Either way, I think we largely agree. I wasn't commenting on FTX, but utilitarian giving in general. I think there is room for thinking about effective altruism, but it shouldn't have a moral monopoly over giving. it makes sense for a narrow set of goals: (e.g. minimize global suffering), but that isn't the only thing people can or should care about I also think it is pretty silly that people can't seems to separate FTX from effective altruism, and criticize each on their own merit.
    - germandiago 4y ago
      > I think there is room for thinking about effective altruism I agree, I think effective altruism set up as a private operating thing could work, and if I ever have enough wealth, this is what I am going to operate. Needless to say that all the taxes I can save by doing that helps, at the end, taxes lower efficiency of any task: fewer resources available. > minimize global suffering Things like this, "save the planet", etc. are very problematic. It is impossible to agree on metrics. I think the best way is to let people innovate and deal with the aspects that are known to improve people's lives. For example, I would never open a charity to give food to people and let them go systematically. I do not think that improves people's lives. But I would be willing to open a place where they can study and have a job for people that are in risk of exclusion. That way you make autonomous people. I really think self-reliance and responsibility is undervalued and that it is an active interest of governments not to help you, but to make you fall on a net of dependency on them so that you end up obeying. That is why we are receiving (Spain again, sorry) systematic attacks to property (higher taxes, renting policies, inheritance tax) and at the same time "social helps". Of course this is really bad and make people dependent. I would say that there is no better person to manage a budget that the one that will pay a price for their mistakes, that is ourselves when it is ours. But if we do it wrong, we pay the price anyway for our mistakes. This means incentives are aligned. In other setups the problem is that incentives are not aligned with what we want to achieve, you just have to believe in their good will. That setup is one I really dislike and taxing works basically like that. Even for public institutions that are injected money, when they would be bankrupt or they are not helping achieve their supposed goals they usually just raise taxes and inject more money. This would be seen as an abuse in normal civil life though state does it systematically.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I think you are confusing two: topics charitable giving in general versus willingness to help an individual. I think this is a common mistake and both points are correct. People are more willing to help an single individual they know than a single stranger. They may also give more to stranger(s) in aggregate than people that they know, but there hey hell of a lot more strangers in the world than people you know. for example, I would give a lot of time and money to help a sick family member, but I wouldn't give that to a single stranger. I you want to talk about willingness to help individuals, I also think your numbers on charitable giving are incorrect. Charitable numbers are defined and biased to measure giving to strangers, as they look at tax deductable donations. If you wanted to look at all financial help given, a more appropriate measure would be money given to strangers versus family. For the latter, you'd have to measure all the money parents spend on children and inheritance. I strongly suspect that people give their family spouses and children much more money over the course of their lives and at time of death. This is where people usually object to strong utilitarian giving. Most people strongly react to the idea that they should spend more money on strangers than their children, because it would do more good for the strangers. The strong utilitarian position is that the moral action would be to save lives in the third world instead of giving your kids birthday presents, paying for their schooling, or giving them your house when you die. From a certain perspective they are right. the problem is that utilitarians often make the good the enemy of the perfect. Sub optimal help still leads to a better world. doing good, but imperfectly is not immoral.

germandiago 4y ago
> doing good, but imperfectly is not immoral It is not this that is immoral. What is immoral is that a guy that has nothing to offer except extracting resources from the effort of others coactively decides where the money goes without you being involved in the process and paying no penalty for the bad decisions. This is not a good system. It is the worst possible system. It is much better to dive in your own money, literally and say "what am I doing with all this?" -> going to open a factory in the 3rd world and hire people. Because in this case there is mutual cooperation, something strong, solid, that will not break easily: people improve their lives, both sides benefit. This kind of state charity in a loop of we always need more for the poor is a failure, many times it does not solve the problem, and it creates an incentive to have poor people, needless to say some policies that perpetuate people receiving them there. I always say that a social help is not a success, it is the reflect of a failure. The fewer we need, the better we are doing. But for that you need individuals with a minimal level of self-reliance and ambition.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Im not sure I follow your entire post, Are you critiquing FTX, the government, or both? Either way, I think we largely agree. I wasn't commenting on FTX, but utilitarian giving in general. I think there is room for thinking about effective altruism, but it shouldn't have a moral monopoly over giving. it makes sense for a narrow set of goals: (e.g. minimize global suffering), but that isn't the only thing people can or should care about I also think it is pretty silly that people can't seems to separate FTX from effective altruism, and criticize each on their own merit.
  - germandiago 4y ago
    > I think there is room for thinking about effective altruism I agree, I think effective altruism set up as a private operating thing could work, and if I ever have enough wealth, this is what I am going to operate. Needless to say that all the taxes I can save by doing that helps, at the end, taxes lower efficiency of any task: fewer resources available. > minimize global suffering Things like this, "save the planet", etc. are very problematic. It is impossible to agree on metrics. I think the best way is to let people innovate and deal with the aspects that are known to improve people's lives. For example, I would never open a charity to give food to people and let them go systematically. I do not think that improves people's lives. But I would be willing to open a place where they can study and have a job for people that are in risk of exclusion. That way you make autonomous people. I really think self-reliance and responsibility is undervalued and that it is an active interest of governments not to help you, but to make you fall on a net of dependency on them so that you end up obeying. That is why we are receiving (Spain again, sorry) systematic attacks to property (higher taxes, renting policies, inheritance tax) and at the same time "social helps". Of course this is really bad and make people dependent. I would say that there is no better person to manage a budget that the one that will pay a price for their mistakes, that is ourselves when it is ours. But if we do it wrong, we pay the price anyway for our mistakes. This means incentives are aligned. In other setups the problem is that incentives are not aligned with what we want to achieve, you just have to believe in their good will. That setup is one I really dislike and taxing works basically like that. Even for public institutions that are injected money, when they would be bankrupt or they are not helping achieve their supposed goals they usually just raise taxes and inject more money. This would be seen as an abuse in normal civil life though state does it systematically.