“The lawyer who quits a high-powered law firm to work at a nonprofit organization certainly seems like a good person. But if we define “good” as helping people, then the lawyer who stays at his law firm but donates the profit to charity is taking Cato’s path of maximizing how much good he does, rather than how good he looks.”
Wouldn’t that depend on how much harm the lawyer might do by remaining at the high-powered law firm? What if the law firm specializes in socially-harmful activities, like defending corporate malfeasance or (pick your example). How does that fit into the equation?
In other words, I don’t think it’s that simple, although it’s an excellent place to start, and I will certainly check out GiveWell for our next charitable tithing session.
“Wouldn’t that depend on how much harm the lawyer might do by remaining at the high-powered law firm?”
Yes. This logical error is present in all the charity related articles. By the time you own the money it is too late. You have helped a corrupt system to become even more corrupt. No amount of money donated to charity—not even a multiple of the money you earned—can right that wrong. Not even with maximally effective charity.
If the leaders are wrong and can’t be deposed it doesn’t help to try and save their victims, because as soon as you help them, whatever they gain is taken from them and used to strengthen the rule of their oppressors. The victims can save themselves if they are ready to serve the oppressors, for example by listening to yvain’s and other’s feel good charity, and become high powered lawyers, but in that way they only spiral the system into more and more corruption. The fact that they try and make the ones not cooperating with corruption look like they are not helping doesn’t make it OK to then make matters worse and claim you are doing good.
Yes. This logical error is present in all the charity related articles. By the time you own the money it is too late. You have helped a corrupt system to become even more corrupt
I might be missing something, but this (and the rest of your post) reads basically like Marxist propaganda. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who makes a lot of money has done so through “corruption”? I would hope LW was one of the places on the internet that this sort of “truism” could be avoided. Just about the only way to make a lot of money is to do something that other people want doing, and which you do better than average.
The fact that they try and make the ones not cooperating with corruption look like they are not helping doesn’t make it OK to then make matters worse and claim you are doing good
I’m seriously struggling to parse this sentence, but it seems to be essentially saying that you’re going to stick with your gut instinct that working for a high-powered law firm can’t possibly be as good as working for a nice fluffy non-profit, and damn the numbers.
Just about the only way to make a lot of money is to do something that other people want doing, and which you do better than average.
This really isn’t true. But if you said “the ways to make money we’re talking about” then we’d be fine. The most morally objectionable job I’ve seen suggested on LW is working in finance, and the worst you can do there is be a con man (though on a pretty massive scale).
Caveat Certain financial actions may increase the likelihood or magnitude of a financial crisis. Financial crises are bad on the scale of the finance sector and so this is significant on the margin.
“I might be missing something, but this (and the rest of your post) reads basically like Marxist propaganda.”
Thank you. Marx was a very intelligent person who unraveled much of the inner workings of capitalism. His error was—I think—that there is something like a collective will of the people (a CEV, maybe) and that there is an effective way of measuring and implementing it. We all know how badly it turned out. But maybe the idea of harnessing collective greed is even worse because it seems flawed already from the beginning.
“Just about the only way to make a lot of money is to do something that other people want doing, and which you do better than average.”
This is quite wrong. There is also a very big effort to prevent other people from acquiring things, and I don’t just mean WMD. Maybe you could read up on the concept of artificial scarcity.
″… you’re going to stick with your gut instinct that working for a high-powered law firm can’t possibly be as good as working for a nice fluffy non-profit, and damn the numbers”
My gut instinct tells me a lawyer who in his day job secures a quarter of a billion dollar settlement with an evil regime to prevent legal persecution of an evil politician involved with a major weapons manufacturer, cannot offset this with buying a few mosquito nets for children in that same third world country.
My gut instinct tells me a lawyer who in his day job secures a quarter of a billion dollar settlement with an evil regime to prevent legal persecution of an evil politician involved with a major weapons manufacturer, cannot offset this with buying a few mosquito nets for children in that same third world country.
What does you gut instinct say about a lawyer who is paid an average of a quarter of a million dollars for a year’s work in which e puts an average of 2 innocent people in jail for six years each and donates on average 2% of er income (5000 dollars) to buying mosquito nets for third world children, saving on average 10 lives?
You seem to be considering the absolute worst case scenario, and adding in extraneous considerations to unfairly sway the argument to your side.
What does you gut instinct say about a lawyer who is paid an average of a quarter of a million dollars for a year’s work in which e puts an average of 2 innocent people in jail for six years each and donates on average 2% of er income (5000 dollars) to buying mosquito nets for third world children, saving on average 10 lives?
My gut instinct says “2*6 years of OECD citizen freedom > 10*45 years of sub-Saharan African lifespan”. Not sure where my point of indifference is. Note that I’m making a very charitable assumption as to how much a mosquito net extends lifespans; typically interventions like this just keep you alive long enough to hit your next emergency.
I’m sorry, this is ambiguous. Does “this” refer to the second half of your post, my post, or both?
Stepping through some of the math, in case others are interested:
Assume the people in question earn the median American salary- 6 years of not working is 2*6*$32k=$384k, and add on the cost of imprisoning them: 2*6*$22k=$264k. So the lawyer is doing damage to the tune of $648,000, and in return is putting $5,000 (that’s .77%) to use saving people. Let’s assume they’re earning, say, the Liberian per capita GDP (which is generally higher than median income) of $424, and again make the charitable assumption that the $5000 converts into 450 years of lifespan. We’ve added $190,800 by keeping them alive.
Net dollar loss: $457k. So this lawyer’s participation in the system is eating half a million dollars per year; is that worth “extended lives in Liberia”—“imprisoned years in America”? I strongly suspect not.
“What does you gut instinct say about a lawyer who is paid an average of a quarter of a million dollars for a year’s work in which e puts an average of 2 innocent people in jail for six years each and donates on average 2% of er income (5000 dollars) to buying mosquito nets for third world children, saving on average 10 lives?”
You are forgetting the lawyer works to uphold the status quo. If that status quo (“the system”) also makes arms dealers reach and invades third world countries or does other despicable things, the net effect of the lawyers actions can still be negative. Think about it as different math operators. You can name a number as big as you want but if I can change the sign of it, it will always be smaller than my small positive number.
“You seem to be considering the absolute worst case scenario, and adding in extraneous considerations to unfairly sway the argument to your side.”
I was thrown a bit off balance by the pejorative “marxist propaganda”. I don’t want to post too much politics in this thread so this will be my last contribution.
You are forgetting the lawyer works to uphold the status quo. If that status quo (“the system”) also makes arms dealers reach and invades third world countries or does other despicable things, the net effect of the lawyers actions can still be negative.
The amount that a criminal trial lawyer contributes to the status quo as it relates to the suffering of third world countries is negligible; it is fair to ignore such small constants.
Incidentally, I downvoted bentarm’s comment about Marxism and upvoted your reply (“Thank you. Marx was a very intelligent person”) because comparing anything to Marxism doesn’t strike me as engaging with the idea (rather, matching to an already-rejected idea so they can reject this new idea easily), and your response indicated your concern was separate to Marx’s.
You are forgetting the lawyer works to uphold the status quo. If that status quo (“the system”) also makes arms dealers reach and invades third world countries or does other despicable things, the net effect of the lawyers actions can still be negative. Think about it as different math operators. You can name a number as big as you want but if I can change the sign of it, it will always be smaller than my small positive number.
A curious note: If ‘The System’ or anyone with power within it actually took you seriously they would necessarily imprison or otherwise cripple your ability to take action. You have essentially declared an intent to fight against everything the system does. That is, if you had any significance you would be a clear and present threat to national (and even international) security.
My gut instinct tells me a lawyer who in his day job secures a quarter of a billion dollar settlement with an evil regime to prevent legal persecution of an evil politician involved with a major weapons manufacturer, cannot offset this with buying a few mosquito nets for children in that same third world country.
Your gut instinct needs to learn more economics. ;)
Also note: This board uses markdown syntax. Details are in the ‘help’ link just below the comment box. To quote a paragraph begin the line with an >.
“The lawyer who quits a high-powered law firm to work at a nonprofit organization certainly seems like a good person. But if we define “good” as helping people, then the lawyer who stays at his law firm but donates the profit to charity is taking Cato’s path of maximizing how much good he does, rather than how good he looks.”
Wouldn’t that depend on how much harm the lawyer might do by remaining at the high-powered law firm? What if the law firm specializes in socially-harmful activities, like defending corporate malfeasance or (pick your example). How does that fit into the equation?
In other words, I don’t think it’s that simple, although it’s an excellent place to start, and I will certainly check out GiveWell for our next charitable tithing session.
“Wouldn’t that depend on how much harm the lawyer might do by remaining at the high-powered law firm?”
Yes. This logical error is present in all the charity related articles. By the time you own the money it is too late. You have helped a corrupt system to become even more corrupt. No amount of money donated to charity—not even a multiple of the money you earned—can right that wrong. Not even with maximally effective charity.
If the leaders are wrong and can’t be deposed it doesn’t help to try and save their victims, because as soon as you help them, whatever they gain is taken from them and used to strengthen the rule of their oppressors. The victims can save themselves if they are ready to serve the oppressors, for example by listening to yvain’s and other’s feel good charity, and become high powered lawyers, but in that way they only spiral the system into more and more corruption. The fact that they try and make the ones not cooperating with corruption look like they are not helping doesn’t make it OK to then make matters worse and claim you are doing good.
The new speak runs several levels deep here.
I might be missing something, but this (and the rest of your post) reads basically like Marxist propaganda. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who makes a lot of money has done so through “corruption”? I would hope LW was one of the places on the internet that this sort of “truism” could be avoided. Just about the only way to make a lot of money is to do something that other people want doing, and which you do better than average.
I’m seriously struggling to parse this sentence, but it seems to be essentially saying that you’re going to stick with your gut instinct that working for a high-powered law firm can’t possibly be as good as working for a nice fluffy non-profit, and damn the numbers.
This really isn’t true. But if you said “the ways to make money we’re talking about” then we’d be fine. The most morally objectionable job I’ve seen suggested on LW is working in finance, and the worst you can do there is be a con man (though on a pretty massive scale).
Caveat Certain financial actions may increase the likelihood or magnitude of a financial crisis. Financial crises are bad on the scale of the finance sector and so this is significant on the margin.
“I might be missing something, but this (and the rest of your post) reads basically like Marxist propaganda.”
Thank you. Marx was a very intelligent person who unraveled much of the inner workings of capitalism. His error was—I think—that there is something like a collective will of the people (a CEV, maybe) and that there is an effective way of measuring and implementing it. We all know how badly it turned out. But maybe the idea of harnessing collective greed is even worse because it seems flawed already from the beginning.
“Just about the only way to make a lot of money is to do something that other people want doing, and which you do better than average.”
This is quite wrong. There is also a very big effort to prevent other people from acquiring things, and I don’t just mean WMD. Maybe you could read up on the concept of artificial scarcity.
″… you’re going to stick with your gut instinct that working for a high-powered law firm can’t possibly be as good as working for a nice fluffy non-profit, and damn the numbers”
My gut instinct tells me a lawyer who in his day job secures a quarter of a billion dollar settlement with an evil regime to prevent legal persecution of an evil politician involved with a major weapons manufacturer, cannot offset this with buying a few mosquito nets for children in that same third world country.
What does you gut instinct say about a lawyer who is paid an average of a quarter of a million dollars for a year’s work in which e puts an average of 2 innocent people in jail for six years each and donates on average 2% of er income (5000 dollars) to buying mosquito nets for third world children, saving on average 10 lives?
You seem to be considering the absolute worst case scenario, and adding in extraneous considerations to unfairly sway the argument to your side.
My gut instinct says “2*6 years of OECD citizen freedom > 10*45 years of sub-Saharan African lifespan”. Not sure where my point of indifference is. Note that I’m making a very charitable assumption as to how much a mosquito net extends lifespans; typically interventions like this just keep you alive long enough to hit your next emergency.
This is the kind of response I want: one that doesn’t say “damn the numbers”.
I’m sorry, this is ambiguous. Does “this” refer to the second half of your post, my post, or both?
Stepping through some of the math, in case others are interested:
Assume the people in question earn the median American salary- 6 years of not working is 2*6*$32k=$384k, and add on the cost of imprisoning them: 2*6*$22k=$264k. So the lawyer is doing damage to the tune of $648,000, and in return is putting $5,000 (that’s .77%) to use saving people. Let’s assume they’re earning, say, the Liberian per capita GDP (which is generally higher than median income) of $424, and again make the charitable assumption that the $5000 converts into 450 years of lifespan. We’ve added $190,800 by keeping them alive.
Net dollar loss: $457k. So this lawyer’s participation in the system is eating half a million dollars per year; is that worth “extended lives in Liberia”—“imprisoned years in America”? I strongly suspect not.
Your post! I am very pleased that someone examined their gut reaction to my scenario with numbers. :)
Then I’m glad I asked, because I read that the other way first and my first draft reflected that :P
“What does you gut instinct say about a lawyer who is paid an average of a quarter of a million dollars for a year’s work in which e puts an average of 2 innocent people in jail for six years each and donates on average 2% of er income (5000 dollars) to buying mosquito nets for third world children, saving on average 10 lives?”
You are forgetting the lawyer works to uphold the status quo. If that status quo (“the system”) also makes arms dealers reach and invades third world countries or does other despicable things, the net effect of the lawyers actions can still be negative. Think about it as different math operators. You can name a number as big as you want but if I can change the sign of it, it will always be smaller than my small positive number.
“You seem to be considering the absolute worst case scenario, and adding in extraneous considerations to unfairly sway the argument to your side.”
I was thrown a bit off balance by the pejorative “marxist propaganda”. I don’t want to post too much politics in this thread so this will be my last contribution.
The amount that a criminal trial lawyer contributes to the status quo as it relates to the suffering of third world countries is negligible; it is fair to ignore such small constants.
Incidentally, I downvoted bentarm’s comment about Marxism and upvoted your reply (“Thank you. Marx was a very intelligent person”) because comparing anything to Marxism doesn’t strike me as engaging with the idea (rather, matching to an already-rejected idea so they can reject this new idea easily), and your response indicated your concern was separate to Marx’s.
A curious note: If ‘The System’ or anyone with power within it actually took you seriously they would necessarily imprison or otherwise cripple your ability to take action. You have essentially declared an intent to fight against everything the system does. That is, if you had any significance you would be a clear and present threat to national (and even international) security.
Your gut instinct needs to learn more economics. ;)
Also note: This board uses markdown syntax. Details are in the ‘help’ link just below the comment box. To quote a paragraph begin the line with an >.