4 ms·

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 conclus

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.
lkbm 12y ago
For me, the Objectively Correct Amount To Donate is the maximum I can deduct. I think this is 33% of gross, but someone elsewhere said it may be up to 50%. I'd go research it, but right now I'm working on achieving that 33$ this year--I'm not hitting 50% unless I bump up my income a good bit. But it's an objective measure externally set for me that is neither 0% or 100% (less the minimum needed to live), so I find it quite helpful. (I think taxes are great and I think we should all pay more to fund education, research, health care, and social safety nets, but right now a good portion of it goes to arresting people for drug use, killing people in the Middle East, breaking the Internet, and other things I really dislike.)
- Mickydtron 12y ago
  33% is way more than most people donate, so congratulations! I would nitpick that the maximum amount you can deduct is set by the government, and thus somewhat arbitrary, and certainly not Morally Objective. However, it is objective to you, the individual, and thus makes a very good Schelling point, and you are finding it helpful, so excellent, good for you. I also largely agree with your statement regarding taxes, and have nothing to add to it at this time.

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.

lkbm 12y ago

For me, the Objectively Correct Amount To Donate is the maximum I can deduct. I think this is 33% of gross, but someone elsewhere said it may be up to 50%. I'd go research it, but right now I'm working on achieving that 33$ this year--I'm not hitting 50% unless I bump up my income a good bit. But it's an objective measure externally set for me that is neither 0% or 100% (less the minimum needed to live), so I find it quite helpful. (I think taxes are great and I think we should all pay more to fund education, research, health care, and social safety nets, but right now a good portion of it goes to arresting people for drug use, killing people in the Middle East, breaking the Internet, and other things I really dislike.)

Mickydtron 12y ago
33% is way more than most people donate, so congratulations! I would nitpick that the maximum amount you can deduct is set by the government, and thus somewhat arbitrary, and certainly not Morally Objective. However, it is objective to you, the individual, and thus makes a very good Schelling point, and you are finding it helpful, so excellent, good for you. I also largely agree with your statement regarding taxes, and have nothing to add to it at this time.