3 ms·
> The whole point is that you can't compare charity like you can lightbulbs. Often you can. Even charities that are attempting to do the same thing (e.g. stop
by henryaj 3y ago
> The whole point is that you can't compare charity like you can lightbulbs.
Often you can. Even charities that are attempting to do the same thing (e.g. stop people dying of malaria) vary wildly in their 'effectiveness' - which is really just a fancy way of saying e.g. 'how many people we prevented dying of malaria per $ spent'.
> but not fine to say "mine is objectively more effective, just look at my quality-adjusted life years spreadsheet".
...because? QALYs are an attempt to make these comparisons possible; it's not clear what your objection here actually is.
- burkaman 3y agoQALYs are a legitimate attempt to make these comparisons, but they are not the only method, and there is no way to determine an objectively correct method. It is not objectively true to say that a young life is more valuable than an old life. It isn't wrong, it just isn't objective. It is a subjective personal belief. Again I am not saying that there is no such thing as effectiveness, and I agree that charities doing the exact same thing can be reasonably compared.