(This comment assumes GiveWell would broadly agree with a characterization of its worldview as consequentialist.) Do you agree with the view that, given moral uncertainty, consequentialists should give some weight to non-consequentialist values? If so, do you think GiveWell should give explicit weight to the intrinsic value of gender equality apart from its instrumental value? And if yes, do you think that, in consider the moral views of the communities that GiveWell operates in, it would make sense to give substantially more weight to the views of women than of men on the value of gender equality?
Q) On Gender Inequality, reproductive health, etc., GiveWell hasn’t done much work on this. Do you see gender equality as having intrinsic value? What are your thoughts on women’s empowerment?
A)
We’re broadly consequentialist in the giving that we do—focused on the direct impact on the world
We take that utilitarian perspective rather than the philosophical value of justice or helping the least
Focusing on equality per se has not been a focus for that reason
We could treat this differently by seeing gender inequality as an intrinsic value, rather than just an instrumental value.
Within the broader framework, we could treat it as an intrinsic value
It’s been a major challenge to weigh different good outcomes that charities do
Some charities improve health, some improve well-being
We try to solve this by using moral weights, to compare the good achieved by different charitable outcomes
These are things that we don’t have the right answers, and our approach to answer these have evolved over time
We used to take the median of what staff believe, to IDInsight to hear from beneficiaries on what they value
We now have a part of our team assigned to these questions, to decide which outcomes would have intrinsic weight
On reproductive health specifically, we’ve looked into that, and we couldn’t find charities that are competitive with our top charities
That’s still in the scope of where we’ll look into
(This comment assumes GiveWell would broadly agree with a characterization of its worldview as consequentialist.) Do you agree with the view that, given moral uncertainty, consequentialists should give some weight to non-consequentialist values? If so, do you think GiveWell should give explicit weight to the intrinsic value of gender equality apart from its instrumental value? And if yes, do you think that, in consider the moral views of the communities that GiveWell operates in, it would make sense to give substantially more weight to the views of women than of men on the value of gender equality?
Answer from Elie Hassenfeld source
Q) On Gender Inequality, reproductive health, etc., GiveWell hasn’t done much work on this. Do you see gender equality as having intrinsic value? What are your thoughts on women’s empowerment?
A)
We’re broadly consequentialist in the giving that we do—focused on the direct impact on the world
We take that utilitarian perspective rather than the philosophical value of justice or helping the least
Focusing on equality per se has not been a focus for that reason
We could treat this differently by seeing gender inequality as an intrinsic value, rather than just an instrumental value.
Within the broader framework, we could treat it as an intrinsic value
It’s been a major challenge to weigh different good outcomes that charities do
Some charities improve health, some improve well-being
We try to solve this by using moral weights, to compare the good achieved by different charitable outcomes
These are things that we don’t have the right answers, and our approach to answer these have evolved over time
We used to take the median of what staff believe, to IDInsight to hear from beneficiaries on what they value
We now have a part of our team assigned to these questions, to decide which outcomes would have intrinsic weight
On reproductive health specifically, we’ve looked into that, and we couldn’t find charities that are competitive with our top charities
That’s still in the scope of where we’ll look into
Thanks Lucy! Readers should note that Elie’s answer is likely partly addressed to Lucy’s question.