4 ms·

From the article: > First, where do we draw the line? If we’re prepared to donate one-third of our incomes to maximize happiness, then why not two-thirds? Why

by krstck 12y ago

From the article: > First, where do we draw the line? If we’re prepared to donate one-third of our incomes to maximize happiness, then why not two-thirds? Why not live in a tent in a park so as to be able to donate 99 percent and prevent even more cases of blindness? This is an area where the writings of Scott Alexander (Slate Star Codex) have been really helpful for me. He refers to this as "Infinite Debt" (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/10/infinite-debt/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/10/infinite-debt/): "For years, I felt like I was probably ethically obligated to give all my income to charity, minus whatever I needed to survive. And the fact that I obviously wasn’t going to do that made me not give anything at all. Once someone told me that my obligation wasn’t infinite, but just some finite amount like ten percent per year, every year, I was thrilled to be able to comply. And of course there are people who make fun of this. “Oh, you really think you can just give an amount you find “convenient”, then feel like your conscience is clear and you can stop caring and be smug and self-satisfied?” The proper response to this person is to ask whether they give so much as ten percent. (“What? No, why should I?! I do my part by yelling at you!”)"

tomjen3 12y ago
The problem with that is that it only works if you believe that 10% makes sense. For me it doesn't - it is either 0% or whatever several 100% of my current income it would take to do my part (I don't see how not currently earning enough to repay would be enough to get me of the hook, certainly car payments are not payed in percentage of income). Thus, for me, the only answer that makes sense is that we have no obligation to save the world, but we are allowed to donate whatever we want. Besides who says all lives have equal value?
- krstck 12y ago
  > Thus, for me, the only answer that makes sense is that we have no obligation to save the world, but we are allowed to donate whatever we want. That's the status quo. The whole reason we're having this conversation is because not enough people are donating X% in order to fix global poverty. So, what's your burden? What's my burden? 10% is a handy figure because it's small enough to be doable for most people, but large enough such that if everyone were donating 10%, we'd have enough money to basically fix global poverty forever. It's handy for us to agree to discharge our infinite debts to each other by agreeing upon some figure. 10% fits that nicely.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    That would be handy, granted. However having looked your argument over I don't think it ads up. Thus I maintain that my burden is 0%, so if you want to fix global poverty you will have to do it without my donations. The real problem isn't that we are not giving enough to Africa, the problem is that we don't buy enough from Africa. If you try to solve that problem instead the Africans will be much better of, you won't have to worry about convincing me, and you can make yourself rich in the process.
    - krstck 12y ago
      > However having looked your argument over I don't think it ads up. Thus I maintain that my burden is 0%, so if you want to fix global poverty you will have to do it without my donations. Can you explain your reasoning? If you don't think you have any burden, then naturally the whole point of relinquishing the infinite debt and the 10% Schelling Point won't have any relevance. But in your original comment, you seemed to imply that there was some amount we are on the hook for, you just couldn't understand why we settled on 10%. But if I am misunderstanding, please correct me.
- Mickydtron 12y ago
  Actually, the 10% isn't intended to be the Objectively Correct Amount To Donate. If someone accepts any obligation to help their fellow humans, then the conclusion is that they have an (effectively) infinite obligation. However, people operating as if they have an infinite obligation tend to find a way to reject that, or simply shut down and ignore the problem. Thus, picking a lower percentage than 100 that can be endorsed can result in better outcomes than the alternative, and 10% is a nice round Schelling point. It sounds as if you reject the notion that you have an obligation to help other people, which I find interesting. Would you be willing to explain your thoughts on this?
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    I reject any obligation to help any random person. I tried to explain my thinking earlier, basically if you have an infinite debt then you don't have any right over your own life. I firmly reject that notion. The only other objectively correct notion is that you have zero debt, as you said 10% is merely a Schelling point. 1% would do as well, so would 5% or 15%. Does that make sense? I am willing to help friends, family, etc because I actually care about them, ie making them happy will make me happy. I am also willing to save the child in this case, because it is a) close b) not especially burdensome and c) will provide me with some measure of happiness. It is a choice I freely make, not a moral obligation (if it was an adult I really hated I might not have rescued him).
    - Mickydtron 12y ago
      It does make sense, thank you for explaining again. I am curious about what meta-ethical system you find to be most compelling. I myself am somewhere within the Consequentialist camp. The others numbers are also potential Schelling points, but I would argue that 10 is a better one, largely because it matches the Christian Tithe, which western culture is largely familiar with. In practice, I do find myself with a tiered system of "obligations" (I would also be interested in breaking down this word with you to see if we are using it in the same way, but you may not have either the interest or time, which would be fine). So, loved ones will receive a higher level of help than I give to strangers, which is probably true of most people.

by krstck 12y ago

tomjen3 12y ago

The problem with that is that it only works if you believe that 10% makes sense. For me it doesn't - it is either 0% or whatever several 100% of my current income it would take to do my part (I don't see how not currently earning enough to repay would be enough to get me of the hook, certainly car payments are not payed in percentage of income). Thus, for me, the only answer that makes sense is that we have no obligation to save the world, but we are allowed to donate whatever we want. Besides who says all lives have equal value?

krstck 12y ago
> Thus, for me, the only answer that makes sense is that we have no obligation to save the world, but we are allowed to donate whatever we want. That's the status quo. The whole reason we're having this conversation is because not enough people are donating X% in order to fix global poverty. So, what's your burden? What's my burden? 10% is a handy figure because it's small enough to be doable for most people, but large enough such that if everyone were donating 10%, we'd have enough money to basically fix global poverty forever. It's handy for us to agree to discharge our infinite debts to each other by agreeing upon some figure. 10% fits that nicely.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  That would be handy, granted. However having looked your argument over I don't think it ads up. Thus I maintain that my burden is 0%, so if you want to fix global poverty you will have to do it without my donations. The real problem isn't that we are not giving enough to Africa, the problem is that we don't buy enough from Africa. If you try to solve that problem instead the Africans will be much better of, you won't have to worry about convincing me, and you can make yourself rich in the process.
  - krstck 12y ago
    > However having looked your argument over I don't think it ads up. Thus I maintain that my burden is 0%, so if you want to fix global poverty you will have to do it without my donations. Can you explain your reasoning? If you don't think you have any burden, then naturally the whole point of relinquishing the infinite debt and the 10% Schelling Point won't have any relevance. But in your original comment, you seemed to imply that there was some amount we are on the hook for, you just couldn't understand why we settled on 10%. But if I am misunderstanding, please correct me.
Mickydtron 12y ago
Actually, the 10% isn't intended to be the Objectively Correct Amount To Donate. If someone accepts any obligation to help their fellow humans, then the conclusion is that they have an (effectively) infinite obligation. However, people operating as if they have an infinite obligation tend to find a way to reject that, or simply shut down and ignore the problem. Thus, picking a lower percentage than 100 that can be endorsed can result in better outcomes than the alternative, and 10% is a nice round Schelling point. It sounds as if you reject the notion that you have an obligation to help other people, which I find interesting. Would you be willing to explain your thoughts on this?
- tomjen3 12y ago
  I reject any obligation to help any random person. I tried to explain my thinking earlier, basically if you have an infinite debt then you don't have any right over your own life. I firmly reject that notion. The only other objectively correct notion is that you have zero debt, as you said 10% is merely a Schelling point. 1% would do as well, so would 5% or 15%. Does that make sense? I am willing to help friends, family, etc because I actually care about them, ie making them happy will make me happy. I am also willing to save the child in this case, because it is a) close b) not especially burdensome and c) will provide me with some measure of happiness. It is a choice I freely make, not a moral obligation (if it was an adult I really hated I might not have rescued him).
  - Mickydtron 12y ago
    It does make sense, thank you for explaining again. I am curious about what meta-ethical system you find to be most compelling. I myself am somewhere within the Consequentialist camp. The others numbers are also potential Schelling points, but I would argue that 10 is a better one, largely because it matches the Christian Tithe, which western culture is largely familiar with. In practice, I do find myself with a tiered system of "obligations" (I would also be interested in breaking down this word with you to see if we are using it in the same way, but you may not have either the interest or time, which would be fine). So, loved ones will receive a higher level of help than I give to strangers, which is probably true of most people.