That does not even come close to cancelling out the reduced ability to get a detailed view of the impact, let alone the much less honest motivations behind such giving.
And lives are not of equal value. Even if you think they have equal innate value, surely you can recognise that a comparatively shorter third-world life with worse prospects for intellectual and artistic development and greater likelihood of abject poverty is much less valuable (even if only due to circumstances) than the lives of people you are surrounded with, and surely you will also recognise that it is the latter that form the basis for your intuitions about the value of life.
By giving your “charity” (actually, the word “charity” stems from Latin caritas meaning care, as in giving to people you care about, whereas “altruism” is cognate with alter, meaning basically otherism, and in practice meaning giving to people you don’t care about) to less worthwhile recipients, you behaving in an anti-meritocratic way and cheapening your act of giving.
Moreover, people obviously don’t have equal innate value, and there is a distinct correlation between earning potential and being a utility monster, which at least partially cancels out the effect of diminishing marginal utility.
And the whole reason people care so much about morality is because the moral virtues and shortcomings of your friends and associates are going to have a huge impact on your life. If you’re redirecting the virtue by giving money to random foreigners, you are basically defaulting on the debt to your friends. One of your closest friend could wind up in deep trouble and need as much help as he can possibly get. He will need virtuous friends he can rely on to help him, and any money you have given to some third worlders you will never meet is money you cannot give to a friend in need. Therefore, any giving to Effective Altruism is inherently unjust and disloyal. By all means, be charitable and give what you can. But not to strangers.
This sounds a lot like Ayn Randian selfishness but applied to the level of a friend group rather than an individual. “Potential obligations to friends and one’s self are more important than the present suffering of strangers” is a consistent point of view that I rarely see eloquent arguments for, but it’s certainly not one I agree with.
It is part Ayn Rand, part Curtis Yarvin. Ultimately it all comes from Thomas Carlyle anyway.
And there is no need to limit yourself to potential obligations. Unless you have an exceedingly blessed life, then there should be no shortage of friends and loved ones in need of help.
I disagree that it’s easier and/or more effective to try to improve local conditions; diminishing marginal utility is a real thing.
That does not even come close to cancelling out the reduced ability to get a detailed view of the impact, let alone the much less honest motivations behind such giving.
And lives are not of equal value. Even if you think they have equal innate value, surely you can recognise that a comparatively shorter third-world life with worse prospects for intellectual and artistic development and greater likelihood of abject poverty is much less valuable (even if only due to circumstances) than the lives of people you are surrounded with, and surely you will also recognise that it is the latter that form the basis for your intuitions about the value of life.
By giving your “charity” (actually, the word “charity” stems from Latin caritas meaning care, as in giving to people you care about, whereas “altruism” is cognate with alter, meaning basically otherism, and in practice meaning giving to people you don’t care about) to less worthwhile recipients, you behaving in an anti-meritocratic way and cheapening your act of giving.
Moreover, people obviously don’t have equal innate value, and there is a distinct correlation between earning potential and being a utility monster, which at least partially cancels out the effect of diminishing marginal utility.
And the whole reason people care so much about morality is because the moral virtues and shortcomings of your friends and associates are going to have a huge impact on your life. If you’re redirecting the virtue by giving money to random foreigners, you are basically defaulting on the debt to your friends. One of your closest friend could wind up in deep trouble and need as much help as he can possibly get. He will need virtuous friends he can rely on to help him, and any money you have given to some third worlders you will never meet is money you cannot give to a friend in need. Therefore, any giving to Effective Altruism is inherently unjust and disloyal. By all means, be charitable and give what you can. But not to strangers.
This sounds a lot like Ayn Randian selfishness but applied to the level of a friend group rather than an individual. “Potential obligations to friends and one’s self are more important than the present suffering of strangers” is a consistent point of view that I rarely see eloquent arguments for, but it’s certainly not one I agree with.
It is part Ayn Rand, part Curtis Yarvin. Ultimately it all comes from Thomas Carlyle anyway.
And there is no need to limit yourself to potential obligations. Unless you have an exceedingly blessed life, then there should be no shortage of friends and loved ones in need of help.
These days, “a shortage of friends and loved ones” in general is not as uncommon as one might hope. :/