Suppose Clare is on £30K and gives away £15K to AMF, while Flo is on £300K and gives away £30K. Clare is arguably a more virtuous person because she has made a much bigger personal sacrifice for others, despite the fact that Flo does more absolute good.
This argument seems to rely on the decision to donate as being a morally significant one, but one’s income as having no merit. However, that’s simply not the case; people can change their income! Choosing to study a liberal arts degree, or work for a not-for-profit, or not ask for a raise because it’s scary, are all choices. Similarly, changing your degree, aggressively pushing for more money, and taking a job in finance you that doesn’t make you feel emotionally fulfilled, are all choices. In the same way that giving a large % is a property of Claire that she deserves credit for, so to is earning a lot a property of Flo that she deserves credit for.
Now suppose Clare mistakenly believes that the most moral action possible is to give the money to disaster relief. Plausibly, Clare is still a more virtuous person than Flo because she has made a huge personal sacrifice for what she believed was right, and Flo has only made a small sacrifice by comparison.
In a similar way people who make serious sacrifices to help the homeless in their area may be better people than EAs who do more absolute good by donating.
You seem to associate virtue with self-sacrifice. I think this is a very unhealthy idea—the purpose of life is to live, not to die! EA offers a positive view of morality, where we have a great opportunity to improve the world. The height of morality is not a wastrel who, never having sought to improve their lot, sacrificed their life to achieve some tiny goal. But no! Far better to be a striving Elon Musk, living an full life that massively helps others.
Choosing to study a liberal arts degree, or work for a not-for-profit, or not ask for a raise because it’s scary, are all choices. Similarly, changing your degree, aggressively pushing for more money, and taking a job in finance you that doesn’t make you feel emotionally fulfilled, are all choices. In the same way that giving a large % is a property of Claire that she deserves credit for, so to is earning a lot a property of Flo that she deserves credit for.
Of course this is correct, and I think it’s important to treat it as something of a virtue. But we typically have less control over the amount we earn than over the proportion we give, so it seems sensible to give less credit for it. Unfortunately that’s an extremely nuanced position which is hard to communicate effectively.
I guess one way of thinking about it is that changing the % is easier than changing the income then, and we should allocate our scarce status resources to the low-hanging fruit.
I think you make a good point about virtue not being self-sacrifice, and I definitely see your first point too, particularly for lots of people currently involved in effective altruism.
However, of course people can only vary their income within certain limits. There are lots of people who may be earning as much as they possibly can, and yet still be earning something close to £15k, through no fault of their own. I’d aspire to an effective altruism that can accommodate these people too, and I think it’s for people like this that Tom’s point comes into play. However, I think that your caveat is really important for the many other people who have a higher upper limit on their earnings.
There are lots of people who may be earning as much as they possibly can, and yet still be earning something close to £15k, through no fault of their own.
I seems unlikely there would be many EAs in this situation. EAs are generally very intelligent and very educated—something would have to be very wrong to leave them capped out at $15k. Even people with only High School education can earn 6 figures if they are committed—working on an oil rig, or driving trucks in Alaska, pay very well, and being a nurse is a very achievable career for most people. Even if they didn’t change career, most people can substantially boost their income by asking for a raise each year.
I think this comment could be improved by removing the false suggestion that some of those professions are not open to certain genders (even if they have skewed gender ratios, the fields are open to all genders).
My concern was that people might accuse me of overstating my case. It’s true that these professions are open to women but I would not feel comfortable recommending them. Certainly if someone suggested I work on a rig I would be rather nonplussed! We can recommend people change career but I think some options are sufficiently beyond the Overton window that it is unreasonable to ask it of people.
However, that’s simply not the case; people can change their income!
I think this is the wrong point to focus on. Both our income and our generosity are largely determined by factors beyond our control, like our genes and prenatal environment. But they’re still part of us! We can give people credit for inherent parts of them. Being born intelligent or generous are both great things, and we should praise people for them.
This argument seems to rely on the decision to donate as being a morally significant one, but one’s income as having no merit. However, that’s simply not the case; people can change their income! Choosing to study a liberal arts degree, or work for a not-for-profit, or not ask for a raise because it’s scary, are all choices. Similarly, changing your degree, aggressively pushing for more money, and taking a job in finance you that doesn’t make you feel emotionally fulfilled, are all choices. In the same way that giving a large % is a property of Claire that she deserves credit for, so to is earning a lot a property of Flo that she deserves credit for.
You seem to associate virtue with self-sacrifice. I think this is a very unhealthy idea—the purpose of life is to live, not to die! EA offers a positive view of morality, where we have a great opportunity to improve the world. The height of morality is not a wastrel who, never having sought to improve their lot, sacrificed their life to achieve some tiny goal. But no! Far better to be a striving Elon Musk, living an full life that massively helps others.
Of course this is correct, and I think it’s important to treat it as something of a virtue. But we typically have less control over the amount we earn than over the proportion we give, so it seems sensible to give less credit for it. Unfortunately that’s an extremely nuanced position which is hard to communicate effectively.
I guess one way of thinking about it is that changing the % is easier than changing the income then, and we should allocate our scarce status resources to the low-hanging fruit.
I think you make a good point about virtue not being self-sacrifice, and I definitely see your first point too, particularly for lots of people currently involved in effective altruism.
However, of course people can only vary their income within certain limits. There are lots of people who may be earning as much as they possibly can, and yet still be earning something close to £15k, through no fault of their own. I’d aspire to an effective altruism that can accommodate these people too, and I think it’s for people like this that Tom’s point comes into play. However, I think that your caveat is really important for the many other people who have a higher upper limit on their earnings.
I seems unlikely there would be many EAs in this situation. EAs are generally very intelligent and very educated—something would have to be very wrong to leave them capped out at $15k. Even people with only High School education can earn 6 figures if they are committed—working on an oil rig, or driving trucks in Alaska, pay very well, and being a nurse is a very achievable career for most people. Even if they didn’t change career, most people can substantially boost their income by asking for a raise each year.
I think this comment could be improved by removing the false suggestion that some of those professions are not open to certain genders (even if they have skewed gender ratios, the fields are open to all genders).
Good idea, I made the edit you suggested.
My concern was that people might accuse me of overstating my case. It’s true that these professions are open to women but I would not feel comfortable recommending them. Certainly if someone suggested I work on a rig I would be rather nonplussed! We can recommend people change career but I think some options are sufficiently beyond the Overton window that it is unreasonable to ask it of people.
I think this is the wrong point to focus on. Both our income and our generosity are largely determined by factors beyond our control, like our genes and prenatal environment. But they’re still part of us! We can give people credit for inherent parts of them. Being born intelligent or generous are both great things, and we should praise people for them.