To some degree, this article is less about moralizing and more of a “how to” guide. If you want to help people, this is how to do it. If you don’t want to help people, and you prefer to have lattes or works of fine art or whatever, then a how-to guide on how to help people isn’t relevant to your interests.
To the degree that it is more than that, the article is an attempt to expose certain thought processes into consciousness so that they can be evaluated by conscious systems. People may be donating to these inefficient charities because they feel like it and they don’t examine their feelings, even though if they were to consciously think the problem through they would give to more efficient charities. If, after realizing that the choice is between one kid’s life or 1/1000 of a painting, someone still prefers the painting, I don’t really have anything more I can say—but my guess is that’s not a lot of the population.
You made a really good point in your mysticism post on Discussion, about the difference between categorizing things by their causes and categorizing things by their effects. When you talk about spiritual and unselfish choices, you’re categorizing things by their causes—a donation to the painting come from the same warm feelings that also produce a donation to vaccines.
Efficient charity is about categorizing things by their effects—it doesn’t matter how noble the feelings that produced a certain action, only how much that action did what you wanted it to do. If you want to help people, it’s about how many people you helped.
Categorizing things by their causes is an academic activity that can only declare some people to be more “unselfish” than others and accord them bragging rights. In my opinion this doesn’t have as much to do with the actual work of saving the world as categorizing things by effects. You say this article claims things about morality, but that’s really not its purpose. Its purpose is—if you’ve seen all sorts of horrible things in the world, and it’s reached the point where you’re so mad you don’t care what can or can’t be classified as moral, you just want to fix things as quickly as possible, what do you do then?
It should be noted that if you want to help people then donating something helps more people than being discouraged to the point of not donating at all due to the possibility that your contribution might be used some orders of magnitude less effectively than possible.
Many people do not (yet) have the ability (or nerves/time etc.) to read up on and make sense of the arguments, or the data, to subsequently compute the answer of what would be the most effective way to spend their money in case they want to help other people.
So before you give up and do not donate anything at all, better split your money and give some to the SIAI (or even Wikipedia etc.). Additionally use a service like GiveWell. And also don’t worry helping to exhibit some painting. All of those contributions will help some people, if only by making them happy (as in the case of the painting). It will make a difference! And it will make a huge difference compared to doing nothing at all.
Indeed, it’s remarkable how little we would have to spend to end the worst poverty and injustice in the world today, if only people were willing to do it.
We literally spend more on cat food than it would take to eliminate the UN absolute poverty level.
To some degree, this article is less about moralizing and more of a “how to” guide.
The specific quote the grandparent was replying to is about moralizing.
And likewise, there is only one best charity: the one that helps the most people the greatest amount per dollar.
One could strip the moralizing element from the quote (and the article) in a fairly straightforward manner. The best charity someone can donate to is subjectively objective: the one that achieves the most benefit per dollar according to that persons values, altruistic or otherwise.
The specific quote the grandparent was replying to is about moralizing.
The problem with the word “best” there is the same problem the word “good” always runs into—the difference between “a good car” and “a good person”. I’m using “best charity” in the same sense I would use “best Arctic survival gear”—best at achieving the purpose you are assumed to have. Although I think there is a case for that also being the morally best for most moral systems in which “morally best” makes sense, that would be way outside the scope of this discussion.
I understand what you are doing in the post and follow the sense of ‘best’. What I am observing is that the claim “you are moralizing” is factually correct. The moralization is not in the form of a direct ‘should’ nor is it in the way in which you use best. It can be seen here:
best at achieving the purpose you are assumed to have.
What a provoking article—excellent! It’s healthy for us to be asking these questions.
But I wonder about the dualistic nature of the questions posed in your ‘how to guide’. Sometimes, in fact often, it is not a simple choice between two. Biodiversity, like culture, is much more complex than a graph can depict. The multiple layers move at different rhythms & speed and are instructed by differing motivations such as hormone, instinct, sex, survival, power, empathy (to name only a few).
My point is that systemic change is not a matter of choosing between the best charity—that approach only has one outcome which is how many lives to save in one monetary act—if we look at the world in a connected web than demonstrating empathy & care by looking after one’s place (cleaning up the local beach) or protecting a rainforest for the future health of the planet—these are all responsibilities with different impacts that contribute to a greater whole. Helping a rainforest now may save millions of lives in the future compared to 10 lives treated for malaria now. And this is not just about humans! I don’t think you can measure what you are trying to measure—it denies the complexity of life and reduces it to an economic plan.
Yes you can look at a ‘how to guide’ if you want to find the best charity and you do make great examples of how to make that decision—but sustaining life and survival is much deeper, chaotic and unknown.
To some degree, this article is less about moralizing and more of a “how to” guide. If you want to help people, this is how to do it. If you don’t want to help people, and you prefer to have lattes or works of fine art or whatever, then a how-to guide on how to help people isn’t relevant to your interests.
To the degree that it is more than that, the article is an attempt to expose certain thought processes into consciousness so that they can be evaluated by conscious systems. People may be donating to these inefficient charities because they feel like it and they don’t examine their feelings, even though if they were to consciously think the problem through they would give to more efficient charities. If, after realizing that the choice is between one kid’s life or 1/1000 of a painting, someone still prefers the painting, I don’t really have anything more I can say—but my guess is that’s not a lot of the population.
You made a really good point in your mysticism post on Discussion, about the difference between categorizing things by their causes and categorizing things by their effects. When you talk about spiritual and unselfish choices, you’re categorizing things by their causes—a donation to the painting come from the same warm feelings that also produce a donation to vaccines.
Efficient charity is about categorizing things by their effects—it doesn’t matter how noble the feelings that produced a certain action, only how much that action did what you wanted it to do. If you want to help people, it’s about how many people you helped.
Categorizing things by their causes is an academic activity that can only declare some people to be more “unselfish” than others and accord them bragging rights. In my opinion this doesn’t have as much to do with the actual work of saving the world as categorizing things by effects. You say this article claims things about morality, but that’s really not its purpose. Its purpose is—if you’ve seen all sorts of horrible things in the world, and it’s reached the point where you’re so mad you don’t care what can or can’t be classified as moral, you just want to fix things as quickly as possible, what do you do then?
I think the idea of something to protect is relevant here.
It should be noted that if you want to help people then donating something helps more people than being discouraged to the point of not donating at all due to the possibility that your contribution might be used some orders of magnitude less effectively than possible.
Many people do not (yet) have the ability (or nerves/time etc.) to read up on and make sense of the arguments, or the data, to subsequently compute the answer of what would be the most effective way to spend their money in case they want to help other people.
So before you give up and do not donate anything at all, better split your money and give some to the SIAI (or even Wikipedia etc.). Additionally use a service like GiveWell. And also don’t worry helping to exhibit some painting. All of those contributions will help some people, if only by making them happy (as in the case of the painting). It will make a difference! And it will make a huge difference compared to doing nothing at all.
Indeed, it’s remarkable how little we would have to spend to end the worst poverty and injustice in the world today, if only people were willing to do it.
We literally spend more on cat food than it would take to eliminate the UN absolute poverty level.
The specific quote the grandparent was replying to is about moralizing.
One could strip the moralizing element from the quote (and the article) in a fairly straightforward manner. The best charity someone can donate to is subjectively objective: the one that achieves the most benefit per dollar according to that persons values, altruistic or otherwise.
The problem with the word “best” there is the same problem the word “good” always runs into—the difference between “a good car” and “a good person”. I’m using “best charity” in the same sense I would use “best Arctic survival gear”—best at achieving the purpose you are assumed to have. Although I think there is a case for that also being the morally best for most moral systems in which “morally best” makes sense, that would be way outside the scope of this discussion.
I understand what you are doing in the post and follow the sense of ‘best’. What I am observing is that the claim “you are moralizing” is factually correct. The moralization is not in the form of a direct ‘should’ nor is it in the way in which you use best. It can be seen here:
That is an extremely powerful moral gambit.
What a provoking article—excellent! It’s healthy for us to be asking these questions.
But I wonder about the dualistic nature of the questions posed in your ‘how to guide’. Sometimes, in fact often, it is not a simple choice between two. Biodiversity, like culture, is much more complex than a graph can depict. The multiple layers move at different rhythms & speed and are instructed by differing motivations such as hormone, instinct, sex, survival, power, empathy (to name only a few).
My point is that systemic change is not a matter of choosing between the best charity—that approach only has one outcome which is how many lives to save in one monetary act—if we look at the world in a connected web than demonstrating empathy & care by looking after one’s place (cleaning up the local beach) or protecting a rainforest for the future health of the planet—these are all responsibilities with different impacts that contribute to a greater whole. Helping a rainforest now may save millions of lives in the future compared to 10 lives treated for malaria now. And this is not just about humans! I don’t think you can measure what you are trying to measure—it denies the complexity of life and reduces it to an economic plan.
Yes you can look at a ‘how to guide’ if you want to find the best charity and you do make great examples of how to make that decision—but sustaining life and survival is much deeper, chaotic and unknown.