For those who have high earning potential and lack skills that are especially rare in the philanthropic world the most efficient way of helping people will typically be taking a high paying job and donating one’s income to an efficient charity. Of course, many people who volunteer or forgo income to work at a non-profit do so not only with a view toward helping people but also because they want to experience the visceral sense of helping people directly or of working directly on a cause that they feel passionate about.
There’s also the issue of doing no harm. I work in commercial litigation, at a “some-profit” job. My salary allows me a surplus to donate significant money to charity; I could instead choose to work at a “nonprofit job” and donate very little, or to work at a “for-profit” job and donate much more.
I chose the “some-profit job” over the non-profit job specifically because of the reasoning you cite—I can probably do more good by donating the extra money than by being more helpful as a lawyer.
Why didn’t I go all the way, and work at a for-profit job? Partly because I find the tasks and people associated with those firms obnoxious, but partly because they do a lot of harm and a lot of lying and a lot of cheating. Admittedly, if I were to shut up and multiply, I would still be saving net lives if I switched, at least if you only count the direct impact of what I do. But I don’t feel comfortable limiting myself to direct impacts—I do not know what the long-term, indirect impacts are of helping to perpetuate a system of lies and injustice and subtle economic oppression, nor do I know how to calculate them.
Advice is welcome, but please, tread carefully. Mere exhortations to “shut up and multiply anyway” are unlikely to move me.
I do not know what the long-term, indirect impacts are of helping to perpetuate a system of lies and injustice and subtle economic oppression, nor do I know how to calculate them.
Which part of the world do you work in? The USA? Western Europe?
If so, I would caution against assuming that the net impact of commercial lawyers is negative. Sure, lying and cheating. But probably less bad than no commercial law at all. And without commercial law, there would be no companies and no economy. The net impact of the economy, is, it seems, positive ;-0
I suspect that lying, cheating greed has a lot of negative emotional affect associated with it. By the time-honored rules of contamination of emotional affect to adjacent concepts, this must mean that the overall impact of commercial law is negative. But no, clearly it isn’t, at least relative to the alternative of no commercial law. One must take care to only use emotions as evidence in domains where we have reason to believe that they are actually useful and accurate.
Also, remember that if you take a job in commercial law, you are not adding another commercial lawyer. You are merely replacing the person who would have got the job if you hadn’t.
I agree with Roko that commercial lawyers collectively do some good. Things are less clear at the margin. I know very little about the world of commercial law and you’re probably in a better position to judge than I am. Still, two brains are better than one. We should talk in person—I’ll be in San Francisco starting December 18th.
I find the tasks and people associated with those firms obnoxious
This seems like a potentially compelling reason for you to eschew a profit maximizing job as a lawyer even from an altruistic point of view. My observation has been that people tend to underestimate the difficulty of sustaining employment at a job that they find unpleasant.
There’s also the issue of doing no harm. I work in commercial litigation, at a “some-profit” job. My salary allows me a surplus to donate significant money to charity; I could instead choose to work at a “nonprofit job” and donate very little, or to work at a “for-profit” job and donate much more.
I chose the “some-profit job” over the non-profit job specifically because of the reasoning you cite—I can probably do more good by donating the extra money than by being more helpful as a lawyer.
Why didn’t I go all the way, and work at a for-profit job? Partly because I find the tasks and people associated with those firms obnoxious, but partly because they do a lot of harm and a lot of lying and a lot of cheating. Admittedly, if I were to shut up and multiply, I would still be saving net lives if I switched, at least if you only count the direct impact of what I do. But I don’t feel comfortable limiting myself to direct impacts—I do not know what the long-term, indirect impacts are of helping to perpetuate a system of lies and injustice and subtle economic oppression, nor do I know how to calculate them.
Advice is welcome, but please, tread carefully. Mere exhortations to “shut up and multiply anyway” are unlikely to move me.
Which part of the world do you work in? The USA? Western Europe?
If so, I would caution against assuming that the net impact of commercial lawyers is negative. Sure, lying and cheating. But probably less bad than no commercial law at all. And without commercial law, there would be no companies and no economy. The net impact of the economy, is, it seems, positive ;-0
I suspect that lying, cheating greed has a lot of negative emotional affect associated with it. By the time-honored rules of contamination of emotional affect to adjacent concepts, this must mean that the overall impact of commercial law is negative. But no, clearly it isn’t, at least relative to the alternative of no commercial law. One must take care to only use emotions as evidence in domains where we have reason to believe that they are actually useful and accurate.
Also, remember that if you take a job in commercial law, you are not adding another commercial lawyer. You are merely replacing the person who would have got the job if you hadn’t.
Thanks for your interesting comment.
I agree with Roko that commercial lawyers collectively do some good. Things are less clear at the margin. I know very little about the world of commercial law and you’re probably in a better position to judge than I am. Still, two brains are better than one. We should talk in person—I’ll be in San Francisco starting December 18th.
This seems like a potentially compelling reason for you to eschew a profit maximizing job as a lawyer even from an altruistic point of view. My observation has been that people tend to underestimate the difficulty of sustaining employment at a job that they find unpleasant.
I’d like that.