I don’t love it. I think, generally, some of the ideas are really good.
I did a fund raiser really recently for The Life You Can Save which is very much under that umbrella, and the whole philosophy kinda starts with the idea that you SHOULD give to others, that if you see someone drowning, and you don’t do everything you can to save them, you’re fucked up as a person and you should view charitable giving the same way: People are dying and you can save them, so you should try to, even if you might have to give up some luxury to do so. I think that’s a good framework to start with.
But the idea of giving to the most EFFECTIVE charities really loses me in general. The trolly problem is interesting because you can iterate on it in really complex ways. It’s stupid to say that people who cost $100 to save instead of $1 to save just aren’t worth saving, at least not until all the “cheap” people are saved. Like, even talking about it like this, one sounds like an asshole, so it’s no surprise that assholes are drawn to it.
Like I said, I did a fundraiser for The Life You Can Save and I think that was energy well-spent, but I also don’t wanna be closely associated with the kinds of weirdo tech bros with messiah complexes.
Yeah, it’s essentially triaging people in need. If money is the limiting factor for how many people you can save, then not using it to save people efficiently would make you an asshole.
I’d say it’s more often a result of misguided/misinformed/uniformed well intentions (the kind the path to hell is paved with) than outright assholery. Assholes usually just don’t help at all.
I don’t love it. I think, generally, some of the ideas are really good.
I did a fund raiser really recently for The Life You Can Save which is very much under that umbrella, and the whole philosophy kinda starts with the idea that you SHOULD give to others, that if you see someone drowning, and you don’t do everything you can to save them, you’re fucked up as a person and you should view charitable giving the same way: People are dying and you can save them, so you should try to, even if you might have to give up some luxury to do so. I think that’s a good framework to start with.
But the idea of giving to the most EFFECTIVE charities really loses me in general. The trolly problem is interesting because you can iterate on it in really complex ways. It’s stupid to say that people who cost $100 to save instead of $1 to save just aren’t worth saving, at least not until all the “cheap” people are saved. Like, even talking about it like this, one sounds like an asshole, so it’s no surprise that assholes are drawn to it.
Like I said, I did a fundraiser for The Life You Can Save and I think that was energy well-spent, but I also don’t wanna be closely associated with the kinds of weirdo tech bros with messiah complexes.
I think it’s a matter of not letting the theoretically perfect be the enemy of the practical good.
Saving 1 person is not as good as saving 100 with the same resources, but it’s better than doing nothing and saving 0.
Yeah, it’s essentially triaging people in need. If money is the limiting factor for how many people you can save, then not using it to save people efficiently would make you an asshole.
I’d say it’s more often a result of misguided/misinformed/uniformed well intentions (the kind the path to hell is paved with) than outright assholery. Assholes usually just don’t help at all.