I disagree. Questions like this one (or like what is the best NGO for hunger relief in Somalia?) are relevant to doing good better. Even if you think (eg) abortion access is bad on the margin, many reasonable people think it’s good, and regardless some interventions are more robustly good than others. Insofar as someone is trying to do the most good with their resources, they should consider many possible causes; insofar as resources are locked in the particular goal of expanding reproductive rights, they should look for the very best interventions in that domain.
Insofar as the relevant interventions are only assessed by something like “number of abortions counterfactually caused,” yes. But within the “reproductive rights” domain, there are interventions that affect other relevant dimensions too.
I disagree. Questions like this one (or like what is the best NGO for hunger relief in Somalia?) are relevant to doing good better. Even if you think (eg) abortion access is bad on the margin, many reasonable people think it’s good, and regardless some interventions are more robustly good than others. Insofar as someone is trying to do the most good with their resources, they should consider many possible causes; insofar as resources are locked in the particular goal of expanding reproductive rights, they should look for the very best interventions in that domain.
If you believe this, doesn’t it flip the sign of the “very best interventions” (ie you would believe they are exceptionally bad interventions)?
Insofar as the relevant interventions are only assessed by something like “number of abortions counterfactually caused,” yes. But within the “reproductive rights” domain, there are interventions that affect other relevant dimensions too.