A full answer to this would be very detailed, so do fill out our form if you’d like us share resources and tactics in more detail.
In brief, I think the main thing is to frame giving as an opportunity, rather than an obligation. There are some pretty robust arguments that it actually is an obligation, if we have disposable income in high income countries—but this tends to be less effective as a persuasion strategy and has more risks around people feeling unduly pressured.
If we talk about the incredible opportunity we have to save a life, or improve animal welfare, without really making any noticeable sacrifice in our own lives, we can inspire people to give. I don’t think we need to pressure people (e.g. by saying ‘you’re a bad person’ or ‘if you don’t do this you’re not an effective altruist’). But we can absolutely raise awareness and persuade people.
Many people, especially at universities, already have some sense that they are in a position of privilege and would like to ‘make a difference’, and for these people it’s just a case of raising their awareness—you’re actually solving a problem for them. Others can be persuaded if we highlight, for example, where the median graduating salary from a university places them in the income distribution of their home country, or indeed globally.
And I think it’s worth emphasising that we’re not saying that everyone should take a pledge that will meaningfully reduce their income—if you’re earning substantially above the median wage, it’s likely that you can give something like 1% with literally no effect at all on your material quality of life. So, again, I don’t think that explaining this framing to people is pressuring them.
Ultimately, of course, any movement seeks to persuade people—we persuade people to change career plans, or majors, or eat less meat—and persuading them to give falls within this spectrum.
Hi Yonatan,
A full answer to this would be very detailed, so do fill out our form if you’d like us share resources and tactics in more detail.
In brief, I think the main thing is to frame giving as an opportunity, rather than an obligation. There are some pretty robust arguments that it actually is an obligation, if we have disposable income in high income countries—but this tends to be less effective as a persuasion strategy and has more risks around people feeling unduly pressured.
If we talk about the incredible opportunity we have to save a life, or improve animal welfare, without really making any noticeable sacrifice in our own lives, we can inspire people to give. I don’t think we need to pressure people (e.g. by saying ‘you’re a bad person’ or ‘if you don’t do this you’re not an effective altruist’). But we can absolutely raise awareness and persuade people.
Many people, especially at universities, already have some sense that they are in a position of privilege and would like to ‘make a difference’, and for these people it’s just a case of raising their awareness—you’re actually solving a problem for them. Others can be persuaded if we highlight, for example, where the median graduating salary from a university places them in the income distribution of their home country, or indeed globally.
And I think it’s worth emphasising that we’re not saying that everyone should take a pledge that will meaningfully reduce their income—if you’re earning substantially above the median wage, it’s likely that you can give something like 1% with literally no effect at all on your material quality of life. So, again, I don’t think that explaining this framing to people is pressuring them.
Ultimately, of course, any movement seeks to persuade people—we persuade people to change career plans, or majors, or eat less meat—and persuading them to give falls within this spectrum.
This seems healthy to me
(as far as my opinion matters)
Thank you for elaborating