6 ms·

I think my comment below[1] addresses parts of this: there are really (at least) two things called "EA," and adherents of the more ridiculous one (like SBF) wil

I think my comment below[1] addresses parts of this: there are really (at least) two things called "EA," and adherents of the more ridiculous one (like SBF) will regularly use the less ridiculous one (Singer's) as moral cover. The post is pretty clearly about the former, not the latter. I agree with your interpretation of Singer, for what it's worth: I don't recall him ever encouraging maximum personal income in any of his books; only observing that someone could do more good (in the Utils sense) with more resources. > Setting aside this article, where's all the hate for giving to charity coming from? Guilty consciences? Shouldn't we as a society celebrate and encourage giving? It seems the alternative more often then not is to accumulate. I don't think anybody really hates charity. What people (rightfully) identify is the "hazard" of motive in charitable giving, particularly public giving: when someone is known publicly to donate, it becomes impossible to distinguish truly benevolent motives from self-interested ones (even if those self-interested motives don't "really" matter from a Utils perspective). Separately: charitable giving on the scale performed by billionaires demonstrates latent injustice. Even if not intended as such, it effectively represents the conversion of a just action (giving to the poor is right) into a whimsical or motive-driven one (I give to the poor because I want to). [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33708972 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33708972

tptacek 4y ago
Indeed, one of the many raps on, uh, modern? EA is that it's morally isomorphic to the practice of buying indulgences.
- physicles 4y ago
  Btw the phrase "morally isomorphic" is a delightfully creative piece of language -- both intuitive and precise.
- gnramires 4y ago
  I am committed to give all that I can -- living frugally as much as reasonable until I die. I think we should be more worried about people that simply haven't come to understanding that we need to help the world, and that other lives matter as our own, than about people giving significant part of their incomes to charity. Of course, the idea is you don't have to do that -- if everyone gave 10%, the world would be much, much better![1]. Heck, sometimes (see the war in Russia), people are actively doing the opposite and trying to destroy civilization. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtWINl3C https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtWINl3C
ctoth 4y ago
Can you explain what this sentence means? > when someone is known publicly to donate, it becomes impossible to distinguish truly benevolent motives from self-interested ones (even if those self-interested motives don't "really" matter from a Utils perspective). Who cares why someone donates, as long as they donate? Is there some thing called "truly benevolent" donations which keep more people alive longer, or have some other measurable impact? I actively am having trouble parsing this. It seems like you realize how ridiculous this sounds, by adding the bit at the end about how it doesn't matter, but then why even bring it up? Like what is special about "truly benevolent" giving? It's not as though these motives don't "really" matter, they ... just don't matter at all?
- emodendroket 4y ago
  Rich people give to charities to aggrandize themselves. Charities, needing donations, trim their sails to appease self-aggrandizing rich people. Not hard to see how this can lead to the charity in effect doing more to serve its patrons than the people it actually claims to help, and based on some up-close experience, I would say that is not an academic concern.
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    The whole point of EA is to move toward a system where charities are judged by the good they do and not their marketing campaign. AMF and other top givewell charities seem far more focused on the good they can do than more classic charities like WWF or Plan Parenthood.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      I am rather skeptical of the notion that this can be meaningfully quantified.
      - JamesBarney 4y ago
        Surely you think between two charities, one that takes a $1,000 and buys caviar for starving children and one that feeds 1000x as many bread the second one does more good per $ than the first.

tptacek 4y ago

Indeed, one of the many raps on, uh, modern? EA is that it's morally isomorphic to the practice of buying indulgences.

physicles 4y ago
Btw the phrase "morally isomorphic" is a delightfully creative piece of language -- both intuitive and precise.
gnramires 4y ago
I am committed to give all that I can -- living frugally as much as reasonable until I die. I think we should be more worried about people that simply haven't come to understanding that we need to help the world, and that other lives matter as our own, than about people giving significant part of their incomes to charity. Of course, the idea is you don't have to do that -- if everyone gave 10%, the world would be much, much better![1]. Heck, sometimes (see the war in Russia), people are actively doing the opposite and trying to destroy civilization. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtWINl3C https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtWINl3C

ctoth 4y ago

Can you explain what this sentence means? > when someone is known publicly to donate, it becomes impossible to distinguish truly benevolent motives from self-interested ones (even if those self-interested motives don't "really" matter from a Utils perspective). Who cares why someone donates, as long as they donate? Is there some thing called "truly benevolent" donations which keep more people alive longer, or have some other measurable impact? I actively am having trouble parsing this. It seems like you realize how ridiculous this sounds, by adding the bit at the end about how it doesn't matter, but then why even bring it up? Like what is special about "truly benevolent" giving? It's not as though these motives don't "really" matter, they ... just don't matter at all?

emodendroket 4y ago
Rich people give to charities to aggrandize themselves. Charities, needing donations, trim their sails to appease self-aggrandizing rich people. Not hard to see how this can lead to the charity in effect doing more to serve its patrons than the people it actually claims to help, and based on some up-close experience, I would say that is not an academic concern.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  The whole point of EA is to move toward a system where charities are judged by the good they do and not their marketing campaign. AMF and other top givewell charities seem far more focused on the good they can do than more classic charities like WWF or Plan Parenthood.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    I am rather skeptical of the notion that this can be meaningfully quantified.
    - JamesBarney 4y ago
      Surely you think between two charities, one that takes a $1,000 and buys caviar for starving children and one that feeds 1000x as many bread the second one does more good per $ than the first.