3 ms·
> Donate more, and donate to charities that are effective (use more of the donations for actions directly related to their mission statement instead of marketin
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> Donate more, and donate to charities that are effective (use more of the donations for actions directly related to their mission statement instead of marketing/admin/etc). The rest is interpretation, as they say. That's all "EA" is.
The problem with EA, isn’t that it advocates doing that - there are a lot of moral frameworks that advocate that, but it creates an ethical framework that pretty much focuses solely on that and ignores the social and moral implications of the person’s behavior outside this. So no matter how many people the person is screwing over in their pursuit of wealth, no matter how many social rules they are breaking, as long as they are donating, they are fine.
It basically reduces morality to a cash flow problem and ignores the other moral and social implications of the (rich or wannabe rich) person’s pursuits and actions.
- adamnemecek 3y agoWe’ve been through this before haha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y agoIf you study history, it is surprising how many “new” ideas are just recycled. Even in computer science, many “new” ideas are recycled from the 60s and 70s.
- Dylan16807 3y agoI would say that the big issue with indulgences, as they became exploited, was that they weren't in exchange for doing "effective" good. Fake charity is a much bigger problem than an impure motive for giving.
- cwillu 3y agoYou're describing a failure mode of “earning to give”, and one that is explicitly called out as a trap to avoid. This is like saying christians are immoral because they can sin as much as they want as long as they go to confession afterwards.
- Dylan16807 3y ago> no matter how many people the person is screwing over Are you sure? That sounds like a stupidly obvious factor to overlook.