17 ms·

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 ch

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.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    Sure, it is easy to invent fantastically silly uses of money. Is that what is at issue?
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Kinda, yes. It's certainly the scale of impact difference between some of the charities: Charities can be useless or actively harmful: https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/criteria/impact/failure-stories https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/criteria/im... vs. $4500/life saved: https://www.givewell.org/our-giving-funds#Top_Charities_Fund https://www.givewell.org/our-giving-funds#Top_Charities_Fund They also say why it's that high: https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates Another example I've heard is hospitals asking people to stop skydiving to raise money for them, as the mean cost of medial care the average skydiver needs due to skydiving injuries exceeds the average money raised by skydiving.
woodruffw 4y ago
And what theory of Good determines how we do that judging? The different "schools" of EA seem to have radically different approaches ("longtermism" versus maximizing QALYs for living beings). And even this punts on perceptive utility, the kind that Nozick warns us about[1]: it's entirely possible that Johnny in Country X gets more utility out of $100 in charitable giving than 50 others in Country Y. But this seems like a really bad logical consequence, the kind that the Internet Rationalist EA community uses to justify spending money on AGI research instead of donating to AMF. Overall, it's much easier to live in a world where we can determine that some set of charities are worth giving to, and not try too hard to order between them. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  Do you think it's good to donate to charities? Do you think that some charities are more effective than other ones? Do you think we should try to measure that to determine which ones are more effective?
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I think giving to charities is supererogatory, at best. At worst, it’s a reflection of a heteronomous will.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    When one considers that there are numerous charities with exact opposite goals I’m not sure how you can consider your three questions to have self-evident answers.
    - JamesBarney 4y ago
      Most charities don't have a charity with an exact opposite goal. Most charitable donations are net good. Sure there exist a small subset of charities that aren't probably doing harm but that's the exception. Would you argue that charitable giving is neutral or bad?

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.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  Sure, it is easy to invent fantastically silly uses of money. Is that what is at issue?
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Kinda, yes. It's certainly the scale of impact difference between some of the charities: Charities can be useless or actively harmful: https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/criteria/impact/failure-stories https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/criteria/im... vs. $4500/life saved: https://www.givewell.org/our-giving-funds#Top_Charities_Fund https://www.givewell.org/our-giving-funds#Top_Charities_Fund They also say why it's that high: https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates Another example I've heard is hospitals asking people to stop skydiving to raise money for them, as the mean cost of medial care the average skydiver needs due to skydiving injuries exceeds the average money raised by skydiving.

woodruffw 4y ago

And what theory of Good determines how we do that judging? The different "schools" of EA seem to have radically different approaches ("longtermism" versus maximizing QALYs for living beings). And even this punts on perceptive utility, the kind that Nozick warns us about[1]: it's entirely possible that Johnny in Country X gets more utility out of $100 in charitable giving than 50 others in Country Y. But this seems like a really bad logical consequence, the kind that the Internet Rationalist EA community uses to justify spending money on AGI research instead of donating to AMF. Overall, it's much easier to live in a world where we can determine that some set of charities are worth giving to, and not try too hard to order between them. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

JamesBarney 4y ago
Do you think it's good to donate to charities? Do you think that some charities are more effective than other ones? Do you think we should try to measure that to determine which ones are more effective?
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I think giving to charities is supererogatory, at best. At worst, it’s a reflection of a heteronomous will.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  When one considers that there are numerous charities with exact opposite goals I’m not sure how you can consider your three questions to have self-evident answers.
  - JamesBarney 4y ago
    Most charities don't have a charity with an exact opposite goal. Most charitable donations are net good. Sure there exist a small subset of charities that aren't probably doing harm but that's the exception. Would you argue that charitable giving is neutral or bad?