It seems to me like there are two somewhat common critical interpretations of the 10% GWWC pledge.
The idea that the standard is 10%, so anything less than that is a failure or not good enough.
The idea that although we only ask for a pledge of 10% of one’s income, we are asking that 100% of pledger’s charitable donations go specifically to effective charities—no room for donations to the arts, one’s alma mater, etc.
Do you think that the 10% GWWC pledge is, in fact, often interpreted that way? If so, do you think there is any value in modifying the pledge or the way it is communicated?
As an example, I have been advocating for a 2%/8% or 2%/10% pledge, with 2% of income going to any charity the donor likes (including but not limited to effective altruism charities), and another 8-10% going specifically to an effective altruism-type charity. Do you think there is any merit in this suggestion or something similar to it?
It seems to me like there are two somewhat common critical interpretations of the 10% GWWC pledge.
The idea that the standard is 10%, so anything less than that is a failure or not good enough.
The idea that although we only ask for a pledge of 10% of one’s income, we are asking that 100% of pledger’s charitable donations go specifically to effective charities—no room for donations to the arts, one’s alma mater, etc.
Do you think that the 10% GWWC pledge is, in fact, often interpreted that way? If so, do you think there is any value in modifying the pledge or the way it is communicated?
As an example, I have been advocating for a 2%/8% or 2%/10% pledge, with 2% of income going to any charity the donor likes (including but not limited to effective altruism charities), and another 8-10% going specifically to an effective altruism-type charity. Do you think there is any merit in this suggestion or something similar to it?
Thank you.