To me, it seems a real problem that this kind of status and reward is so much harder for the poor to attain.
Why, do you believe we should redistribute moral virtue?
The Pledge is trying to encourage people to donate more, so it assigns status on that basis. We don’t want to reduce that incentive, it is already weak enough.
I mentioned this on Facebook before (I hope I don’t sound like a broken record!), but the feelings of fellow aspiring EAs, while no doubt important, completely pales in comparison to that of the population we’re trying to serve. Here’s an analogy from GiveDirectly:
https://www.givedirectly.org/blog-post.html?id=1960644650098330671
“through my interactions with the organization, it’s become clear that their commitment is not just to evidence – it’s to the poor. Most international charities’ websites prominently feature photos of relatable smiling children, but not GiveDirectly, because of respect for beneficiaries’ privacy and security. Many charities seem to resign themselves to a certain degree of corruption among their staff, but GiveDirectly is willing to install intrusive internal controls to actively prevent corruption.”
Is intrusive internal controls “unfair” to GiveDirectly’s staff members? In some sense, of course...other NGOs don’t do this. In another, more important sense, however, GiveDirectly workers are still way better off than the people they’re transferring money to.
In a similar sense, while “the poor” (by that, I assume you mean people making in the 80th percentile of income) will find it more difficult to meet the GWWC pledge, and maybe it’s less “fair” for them to feel altruistic, it’s even less fair to die from malaria. Ultimately my greatest priority isn’t fellow EAs. Paul Farmer said that his duty is [paraphrasing] “first to the sick, second to prisoners, and third to students.” I think this is the right model to have. Conventional models of morality radiates outwards from our class and social standing, whereas a more universalist ethic will triage.
If this is not obvious to you, imagine, behind the veil of ignorance, the following two scenarios:
1) You’re making minimum wage in the US. You heard about the Giving What We Can pledge. You would like to contribute but know that you have a greater obligation to your family. You feel bad about the situation in Africa and wished that those elitist EAs didn’t shove this into your face.
2) Your child, your second child, has convulsions from a fever. You don’t know why, but you suspect that it’s due to malaria. Your first child has already died of diarrhea. You didn’t work today to take care of your child, but you know your family has very little savings left for food, never mind medicine.You’re crying and crying and crying but you know you shouldn’t cry because it’s a waste of resources and anyway the world isn’t fair and nobody cares.
I apologize for the pathos, but it seems blatantly clear to me that 2) is a substantially greater issue than 1). I suspect that my usual M.O of arguing rationally isn’t getting this across clearly.
I agree with this. Let me make explain why I stand by the point that you quote me on.
Tl;dr: by “negative effects” I wasn’t talking about the hurt feelings of potential EAs.
My point wasn’t the following:
“It’s unfair on relatively poor potential EAs, therefore it’s bad, therefore let’s change the movement”
As you stress, this consideration is outweighed by the considerations of those the movement is trying to help. I accept explicitly in the article that such considerations might justify us making EA elitist.
My point was rather that people criticise us for being elitist etc. Having an elitist pledge reinforces this image and prevents people from joining—not just those in relative poverty. This reduces our ability to help those in absolute poverty. You don’t seem to have acknowledged this point in your criticisms.
Why, do you believe we should redistribute moral virtue?
The Pledge is trying to encourage people to donate more, so it assigns status on that basis. We don’t want to reduce that incentive, it is already weak enough.
No, but it’s unfair that it’s harder for the poor to attain the status. That has negative effects which I talked about in the article.
I mentioned this on Facebook before (I hope I don’t sound like a broken record!), but the feelings of fellow aspiring EAs, while no doubt important, completely pales in comparison to that of the population we’re trying to serve. Here’s an analogy from GiveDirectly: https://www.givedirectly.org/blog-post.html?id=1960644650098330671
“through my interactions with the organization, it’s become clear that their commitment is not just to evidence – it’s to the poor. Most international charities’ websites prominently feature photos of relatable smiling children, but not GiveDirectly, because of respect for beneficiaries’ privacy and security. Many charities seem to resign themselves to a certain degree of corruption among their staff, but GiveDirectly is willing to install intrusive internal controls to actively prevent corruption.”
Is intrusive internal controls “unfair” to GiveDirectly’s staff members? In some sense, of course...other NGOs don’t do this. In another, more important sense, however, GiveDirectly workers are still way better off than the people they’re transferring money to.
In a similar sense, while “the poor” (by that, I assume you mean people making in the 80th percentile of income) will find it more difficult to meet the GWWC pledge, and maybe it’s less “fair” for them to feel altruistic, it’s even less fair to die from malaria. Ultimately my greatest priority isn’t fellow EAs. Paul Farmer said that his duty is [paraphrasing] “first to the sick, second to prisoners, and third to students.” I think this is the right model to have. Conventional models of morality radiates outwards from our class and social standing, whereas a more universalist ethic will triage.
If this is not obvious to you, imagine, behind the veil of ignorance, the following two scenarios:
1) You’re making minimum wage in the US. You heard about the Giving What We Can pledge. You would like to contribute but know that you have a greater obligation to your family. You feel bad about the situation in Africa and wished that those elitist EAs didn’t shove this into your face.
2) Your child, your second child, has convulsions from a fever. You don’t know why, but you suspect that it’s due to malaria. Your first child has already died of diarrhea. You didn’t work today to take care of your child, but you know your family has very little savings left for food, never mind medicine.You’re crying and crying and crying but you know you shouldn’t cry because it’s a waste of resources and anyway the world isn’t fair and nobody cares.
I apologize for the pathos, but it seems blatantly clear to me that 2) is a substantially greater issue than 1). I suspect that my usual M.O of arguing rationally isn’t getting this across clearly.
I agree with this. Let me make explain why I stand by the point that you quote me on. Tl;dr: by “negative effects” I wasn’t talking about the hurt feelings of potential EAs.
My point wasn’t the following: “It’s unfair on relatively poor potential EAs, therefore it’s bad, therefore let’s change the movement” As you stress, this consideration is outweighed by the considerations of those the movement is trying to help. I accept explicitly in the article that such considerations might justify us making EA elitist.
My point was rather that people criticise us for being elitist etc. Having an elitist pledge reinforces this image and prevents people from joining—not just those in relative poverty. This reduces our ability to help those in absolute poverty. You don’t seem to have acknowledged this point in your criticisms.