3 ms·
Not all lives have the same subjective utility to the donor. When pressed into making a choice I think most would rather save their own child’s life than a mill
by ivalm 3y ago
Not all lives have the same subjective utility to the donor. When pressed into making a choice I think most would rather save their own child’s life than a million random children in Africa. If someone likes the band I imagine the donor would feel more utility in helping them than saving a greater amount of people they have no connection to.
- lovasoa 3y ago> most would rather save their own child’s life than a million random children The idea of effective altruism is that this is immoral, and that our instinctive behavior of being so indifferent to the sufferings of those we don't feel "close" to should be fought against.
- ivalm 3y agoSure, but there is no reason to think that universal utilitarianism is the correct moral philosophy. I think lots of people get trapped into thinking from these universal principles in the abstract and it’s important to remind that that’s an absolutely arbitrary, and not-natural-to-humans, way of thinking about ethics. Our view of other humans absolutely doesn’t, and shouldn’t, start from an uninformed prior.
- saulpw 3y agoCharity begins at home. It's immoral in my -ism to send money halfway around the world, while ignoring the growing misery in your own city. Similarly it would be immoral to sacrifice your own child to save the lives of two strangers. If EA'ers really acted according to their ethos, they would be harvesting and donating their own children's organs. Two kidneys, two lungs, a pancreas, a liver, and a heart could help a lot more people than the one underdeveloped being they're currently hosted in!