One possible response is that even if these projects aren’t counterfactual, people who create impact deserve funding as a matter of fairness. This seems like a reasonable position, but notice that it is in tension with utilitarianism.
A few quick thoughts:
Being the sort of agent/civilization that tends to act in a way that is fair and just can be very beneficial (both to us and to anyone else similar to us).
(Consider that human evolution optimizes for inclusive fitness, and yet it spit out creatures that are sometimes willing to take a hit in their expected inclusive fitness for the purpose of enforcing fairness/justice.)
The line of reasoning in the quote seems like a special case of donors failing to coordinate (where the person carrying out the project at their own expense is in the role of one of the donors). Compare:
“I would donate to get this project carried out if I had to, but since I know you’ll donate 100% of the required amount if I won’t donate—I’ll let you do that.”
That line of reasoning also suggests that EA orgs should ask each of their employees whether they will work for free if they don’t get a salary; and refuse to pay a salary to employees who answer “yes”.
That line of reasoning also suggests that EA orgs should ask each of their employees whether they will work for free if they don’t get a salary; and refuse to pay a salary to employees who answer “yes”.
Maybe, but I imagine that the number of people who’d work just as hard long-term would be about zero, so more of the impact would be counterfactual.
Interesting points!
A few quick thoughts:
Being the sort of agent/civilization that tends to act in a way that is fair and just can be very beneficial (both to us and to anyone else similar to us).
(Consider that human evolution optimizes for inclusive fitness, and yet it spit out creatures that are sometimes willing to take a hit in their expected inclusive fitness for the purpose of enforcing fairness/justice.)
The line of reasoning in the quote seems like a special case of donors failing to coordinate (where the person carrying out the project at their own expense is in the role of one of the donors). Compare: “I would donate to get this project carried out if I had to, but since I know you’ll donate 100% of the required amount if I won’t donate—I’ll let you do that.”
That line of reasoning also suggests that EA orgs should ask each of their employees whether they will work for free if they don’t get a salary; and refuse to pay a salary to employees who answer “yes”.
Maybe, but I imagine that the number of people who’d work just as hard long-term would be about zero, so more of the impact would be counterfactual.