1) Social pressure. Tell people “You ought to do X if you want to be a good person” actually works pretty well, if it comes at them from enough directions. Clearly, I cannot singlehandedly change the culture of a nation, but I can help.
it should be set at a level that inspires guilt if they don’t
I’m strongly opposed to any scheme that is based on guilt. Social pressure maybe though it has connotations of force. Coaxing maybe though it has connotations of trickery. There are milder forms of pressure and more authentic forms of coaxing I think.
I’m not referring to the social pressure against, say, being gay in 1950. I’m thinking more along the lines of the social pressure against smoking in 1980. It’s a clear preference, and everyone know it’s a good idea, but you’re not shunned for disobeying. (Admittedly, social pressure is really, really hard to calibrate. There’s not enough in favour of charity right now, except in the occasional microcosm like LW, but overshooting is possible, and there’s several real examples to point to).
Social pressure. Tell people “You ought to do X if you want to be a good person” actually works pretty well, if it comes at them from enough directions.
Yes, but there’s already a crowded marketplace of preachers and institutions doing just that, for different values of X. What is especially persuasive or effective about your message or methodology? Why should we expect it to be more successful than, say, PETA, or the People’s Temple?
It’s already got presence in mindspace, the basic principles are ones almost everybody agrees with, and unlike other advocacy groups it’s non-sectarian—I’d never consider doing what PETA wants because I find them to be loathsome fools, but donating to charity carries no such stigma.
Tell people “You ought to do X if you want to be a good person” actually works pretty well, if it comes at them from enough directions.
That actually depends on a lot of factors and I would be wary of sweeping generalizations. Attempts to “change the culture” sometimes work, but sometimes backfire. In any case, it’s a very slow process.
Also, “social pressure” has a chicken-and-egg problem—it only works if enough people do it.
And even in the US, less than a third of charitable donations are religious.
So you are comfortable with 1⁄3 of the “atheist’s tithe” going straight to churches (and some additional percentage going to church-affiliated charities)?
Note also that “religion” is by far the largest category of charity recipients, twice as large as the next one (which is “education”, aka schools and universities).
1) Agreed. I don’t imagine this one backfiring, though it is of course hard to actually do. Still, most of the thing LW sets its mind to are equally hard, so I don’t see this as a particular barrier.
2) I suspect it’ll be less than that—the religious donate more(which is a big part of why the US is the most generous developed nation), and a lot of them actually do tithe as-is, which means this proposal won’t result in them giving any more. But even if it is 1⁄3, yeah, I’m fine with that. A lot of religious money these days is spent on good works that even an atheist like myself will give props for, and even if it was all wasted, 2⁄3 of donations will be doing good things.
1) Social pressure. Tell people “You ought to do X if you want to be a good person” actually works pretty well, if it comes at them from enough directions. Clearly, I cannot singlehandedly change the culture of a nation, but I can help.
2) Those are not professions associated with high levels of religiosity. And even in the US, less than a third of charitable donations are religious. http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/
I’m strongly opposed to any scheme that is based on guilt. Social pressure maybe though it has connotations of force. Coaxing maybe though it has connotations of trickery. There are milder forms of pressure and more authentic forms of coaxing I think.
I’m not referring to the social pressure against, say, being gay in 1950. I’m thinking more along the lines of the social pressure against smoking in 1980. It’s a clear preference, and everyone know it’s a good idea, but you’re not shunned for disobeying. (Admittedly, social pressure is really, really hard to calibrate. There’s not enough in favour of charity right now, except in the occasional microcosm like LW, but overshooting is possible, and there’s several real examples to point to).
Yes, but there’s already a crowded marketplace of preachers and institutions doing just that, for different values of X. What is especially persuasive or effective about your message or methodology? Why should we expect it to be more successful than, say, PETA, or the People’s Temple?
It’s already got presence in mindspace, the basic principles are ones almost everybody agrees with, and unlike other advocacy groups it’s non-sectarian—I’d never consider doing what PETA wants because I find them to be loathsome fools, but donating to charity carries no such stigma.
That actually depends on a lot of factors and I would be wary of sweeping generalizations. Attempts to “change the culture” sometimes work, but sometimes backfire. In any case, it’s a very slow process.
Also, “social pressure” has a chicken-and-egg problem—it only works if enough people do it.
So you are comfortable with 1⁄3 of the “atheist’s tithe” going straight to churches (and some additional percentage going to church-affiliated charities)?
Note also that “religion” is by far the largest category of charity recipients, twice as large as the next one (which is “education”, aka schools and universities).
1) Agreed. I don’t imagine this one backfiring, though it is of course hard to actually do. Still, most of the thing LW sets its mind to are equally hard, so I don’t see this as a particular barrier.
2) I suspect it’ll be less than that—the religious donate more(which is a big part of why the US is the most generous developed nation), and a lot of them actually do tithe as-is, which means this proposal won’t result in them giving any more. But even if it is 1⁄3, yeah, I’m fine with that. A lot of religious money these days is spent on good works that even an atheist like myself will give props for, and even if it was all wasted, 2⁄3 of donations will be doing good things.