It would seem that Greene has deconverted you away from objective morality along different lines than I was trying for myself.
Anyway, your comment suggests that FAI should take its funding primarily from the most selfish of rationalists who still have a trace of altruism in them, since FAI would be the only project where expected utilons can be purchased so cheaply as to move them; and leave more altruistic funding to more mundane projects.
Now, what are the odds that would work in real life? I would think very low. FAI is likely to actually need those rare folk who can continue supporting without a lot of in-person support and encouragement and immediately visible concrete results, leaving the others to those projects which are more intuitively encouraging to a human brain.
It seems to me that no matter what people claim about their selfishness or altruism, the real line is between those who can bring themselves to do something about it under conditions X and those who can’t—and that the actual payoff in expected utilons matters little, but the reinforcing conditions matter a lot.
It would seem that Greene has deconverted you away from objective morality along different lines than I was trying for myself.
I think that this is because, in the world of antirealism, there is a lot of room for arbitrary disagreement based on unjustifiable personal preferences. I think that you’re a more altruistic person than me, and this shows, but the difference is perhaps smaller than you think. It would be easier to iron this out in person than by text. Most people don’t even give 1% of their wealth to charities… that would be about £500 per year for most people in the UK, most people don’t give anything like that much. Speaking of which, I think I have a donation to make…
It seems to me that no matter what people claim about their selfishness or altruism, the real line is between those who can bring themselves to do something about it under conditions X and those who can’t—and that the actual payoff in expected utilons matters little, but the reinforcing conditions matter a lot.
Yep. I agree completely. If I was surrounded by people who were all giving 50% of their wealth to the third world, I’d probably want to do the same. But we now know that different circumstances bring out different aspects of people
I would think very low. FAI is likely to actually need those rare folk who can continue supporting without a lot of in-person support and encouragement and immediately visible concrete results, leaving the others to those projects which are more intuitively encouraging to a human brain.
I agree with this too—I think that you have to have a very specific self-image to want to work on FAI. The self-image of being either a very good person, or a very important person, or a combination of both. I think that I’m a combination of the two. I do feel a certain amount of duty towards others, especially those who are close to me, and the people in this world who I admire. I am more motivated by the thought of the 0.001% of people on the planet who I think are really awesome getting turned into paperclips than the others.
Anyway, your comment suggests that FAI should take its funding primarily from the most selfish of rationalists who still have a trace of altruism in them, since FAI would be the only project where expected utilons can be purchased so cheaply as to move them; and leave more altruistic funding to more mundane projects.
No, I’d say that at the moment all money one has power over should go to FAI, until it is funded at a level of about 0.1% of world GDP, or about a billion a year. That includes the funding of true altruists, and of “trace” altruists who are (say) prepared to donate 1% of their effort to help others. At that point, you’d have to do a more careful analysis which I don’t have time or knowledge for.
It would seem that Greene has deconverted you away from objective morality along different lines than I was trying for myself.
Anyway, your comment suggests that FAI should take its funding primarily from the most selfish of rationalists who still have a trace of altruism in them, since FAI would be the only project where expected utilons can be purchased so cheaply as to move them; and leave more altruistic funding to more mundane projects.
Now, what are the odds that would work in real life? I would think very low. FAI is likely to actually need those rare folk who can continue supporting without a lot of in-person support and encouragement and immediately visible concrete results, leaving the others to those projects which are more intuitively encouraging to a human brain.
It seems to me that no matter what people claim about their selfishness or altruism, the real line is between those who can bring themselves to do something about it under conditions X and those who can’t—and that the actual payoff in expected utilons matters little, but the reinforcing conditions matter a lot.
But perhaps I am mistaken.
Shhh.
No saying the F-acronym yet.
I think that this is because, in the world of antirealism, there is a lot of room for arbitrary disagreement based on unjustifiable personal preferences. I think that you’re a more altruistic person than me, and this shows, but the difference is perhaps smaller than you think. It would be easier to iron this out in person than by text. Most people don’t even give 1% of their wealth to charities… that would be about £500 per year for most people in the UK, most people don’t give anything like that much. Speaking of which, I think I have a donation to make…
Yep. I agree completely. If I was surrounded by people who were all giving 50% of their wealth to the third world, I’d probably want to do the same. But we now know that different circumstances bring out different aspects of people
I agree with this too—I think that you have to have a very specific self-image to want to work on FAI. The self-image of being either a very good person, or a very important person, or a combination of both. I think that I’m a combination of the two. I do feel a certain amount of duty towards others, especially those who are close to me, and the people in this world who I admire. I am more motivated by the thought of the 0.001% of people on the planet who I think are really awesome getting turned into paperclips than the others.
No, I’d say that at the moment all money one has power over should go to FAI, until it is funded at a level of about 0.1% of world GDP, or about a billion a year. That includes the funding of true altruists, and of “trace” altruists who are (say) prepared to donate 1% of their effort to help others. At that point, you’d have to do a more careful analysis which I don’t have time or knowledge for.