If optimizing charity was the question that people focused on, we would still end up having the discussion about whether or not the charity should provide abortions, contraceptives, etc.
Since GiveWell hasn’t found any good charities that provide abortions and give out contraceptives the answer in this community is probably: “No, charity shouldn’t do those things.”
That’s however a very different discussion from mainstream US discussion over the status of abortion.
Since GiveWell hasn’t found any good charities that provide abortions and give out contraceptives the answer in this community is probably: “No, charity shouldn’t do those things.”
Did an ‘is’ just morph into a ‘should’ there somehow?
Since GiveWell hasn’t found any good charities that provide abortions and give out contraceptives the answer in this community is probably: “No, charity shouldn’t do those things.”
Or “There is not an existing charity which does those things well enough to donate towards.”
“Givewell hasn’t found any good charities that do X” does not imply “Charity should not do X”
Qiaochu_Yuan’s argument was that debates over abortion are privileged questions (discussed disproportionately to the value of answering them).
I added that while this is true in regards to the specific nature of the questions, the underlying moral uncertainty that the questions represent (faced by the US population—lesswrong is pretty settled here) is one that is valuable to discuss for the population at large because it effects how they behave.
Givewell isn’t worrying about moral uncertainty—they’ve already settled approximately on utilitarianism. Not so for the rest of the population.
Since GiveWell hasn’t found any good charities that provide abortions and give out contraceptives the answer in this community is probably: “No, charity shouldn’t do those things.”
That’s however a very different discussion from mainstream US discussion over the status of abortion.
Did an ‘is’ just morph into a ‘should’ there somehow?
Or “There is not an existing charity which does those things well enough to donate towards.”
“Givewell hasn’t found any good charities that do X” does not imply “Charity should not do X”
We are talking about the mainstream US here.
Qiaochu_Yuan’s argument was that debates over abortion are privileged questions (discussed disproportionately to the value of answering them).
I added that while this is true in regards to the specific nature of the questions, the underlying moral uncertainty that the questions represent (faced by the US population—lesswrong is pretty settled here) is one that is valuable to discuss for the population at large because it effects how they behave.
Givewell isn’t worrying about moral uncertainty—they’ve already settled approximately on utilitarianism. Not so for the rest of the population.