Why would decriminalizing apostasy be particularly important to you? It’s something that happens to you, but if you’re just worrying about yourself, no charity will be cost-effective, and you should just worry about having fun.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Suppose I was (hypothetically, counterfactually) in danger of legal persecution as an apostate. That danger would be in the way of my having fun. Then I would want being an apostate to be legalized. Whether I achieved that by donating to a charity or any other way is instrumental.
It’s incorrect that in general, donating to a charity is never useful to me personally. I have type 1 diabetes; I donated to the relevant Israeli charity, which lobbied the government, which included insulin pumps in the social security net (medications that every tax-payer has very cheap access to). I gained actual money compared to paying out of pocket for the pump (although I didn’t do that), and I gained fun (using a pump is much more fun than manual injections).
Or: someone donates to SI; this increases the chance of successful FAI takeoff; they go on to have fun forever instead of dying of old age.
If you could single-handedly legalize it, it would be a good idea, but you can’t. You might be able to help, so that you add a tiny probability of success, or a tiny decrease in the time necessary. Since you’re helping a lot of people, it makes a significant difference over all. If you’re only worried about one person, it’s not really worth doing.
In your personal example, multiply the amount you donated by the increase in probability in getting the insulin pump. The result is more than the total costs of the insulin pumps, but is it more than it costs for one?
If you’re only worried about one person, it’s not really worth doing.
If I estimated my chances of being executed due to such a law were significant, it might be worth it to pay for even a small increase in the probability of it being repealed.
In your personal example, multiply the amount you donated by the increase in probability in getting the insulin pump. The result is more than the total costs of the insulin pumps, but is it more than it costs for one?
I couldn’t afford to buy a pump privately before the law was changed. So the successful change in the law was for me mostly a change in quality of life rather than in ongoing expenses. It can make sense to pay for a small chance to improve quality of life sufficiently, because humans don’t have a single utility function convertible to dollars, they have many competing ones.
ETA: I agree purchasing small increments in probability of a large payoff is problematic. We could view it instead as a coordination problem: estimate how much donated money was needed in total, use pledges/precommitments from many donators, and have everyone donate if enough pledges are collected. Like a Kickstarter for not-for-profit missions.
If I estimated my chances of being executed due to such a law were significant, it might be worth it to pay for even a small increase in the probability of it being repealed.
You could probably reduce your chances more cost-effectively by fleeing the country or taking acting lessons.
I couldn’t afford to buy a pump privately before the law was changed.
You could gamble.
ETA: …
If you decide not to do it unless everyone pays, someone invariably will fail to pay. If you allow some people not to pay, everyone will want to be one of those people. If you just ask for people to pledge, everyone will just hope everyone else pledges.
Why would decriminalizing apostasy be particularly important to you? It’s something that happens to you, but if you’re just worrying about yourself, no charity will be cost-effective, and you should just worry about having fun.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Suppose I was (hypothetically, counterfactually) in danger of legal persecution as an apostate. That danger would be in the way of my having fun. Then I would want being an apostate to be legalized. Whether I achieved that by donating to a charity or any other way is instrumental.
It’s incorrect that in general, donating to a charity is never useful to me personally. I have type 1 diabetes; I donated to the relevant Israeli charity, which lobbied the government, which included insulin pumps in the social security net (medications that every tax-payer has very cheap access to). I gained actual money compared to paying out of pocket for the pump (although I didn’t do that), and I gained fun (using a pump is much more fun than manual injections).
Or: someone donates to SI; this increases the chance of successful FAI takeoff; they go on to have fun forever instead of dying of old age.
If you could single-handedly legalize it, it would be a good idea, but you can’t. You might be able to help, so that you add a tiny probability of success, or a tiny decrease in the time necessary. Since you’re helping a lot of people, it makes a significant difference over all. If you’re only worried about one person, it’s not really worth doing.
In your personal example, multiply the amount you donated by the increase in probability in getting the insulin pump. The result is more than the total costs of the insulin pumps, but is it more than it costs for one?
If I estimated my chances of being executed due to such a law were significant, it might be worth it to pay for even a small increase in the probability of it being repealed.
I couldn’t afford to buy a pump privately before the law was changed. So the successful change in the law was for me mostly a change in quality of life rather than in ongoing expenses. It can make sense to pay for a small chance to improve quality of life sufficiently, because humans don’t have a single utility function convertible to dollars, they have many competing ones.
ETA: I agree purchasing small increments in probability of a large payoff is problematic. We could view it instead as a coordination problem: estimate how much donated money was needed in total, use pledges/precommitments from many donators, and have everyone donate if enough pledges are collected. Like a Kickstarter for not-for-profit missions.
You could probably reduce your chances more cost-effectively by fleeing the country or taking acting lessons.
You could gamble.
If you decide not to do it unless everyone pays, someone invariably will fail to pay. If you allow some people not to pay, everyone will want to be one of those people. If you just ask for people to pledge, everyone will just hope everyone else pledges.
You seem to be right. I should rethink my position. I will update my reply later.
Actually, starting a lobby with the goal of legalizing apostasy sounds like a good idea...