Sorry, I understand this is a bit confusing. I was hesitant to spell it out, because I’m afraid of building a strawman:
My interpretation is that some people have an issue with non-self-oriented wishes or desires, because they can feel like virtue-signalling or guilt-tripping. Expressing things such as “I really want a world without malaria” can be interpreted as condoning the use of suffering as a negotiation tool.
I.e : Step 1: People are suffering from malaria Step 2: This prompts me to fight malaria Step 3: Someone concludes that suffering causes me to help them Step 4: They self-inflict suffering to them Step 5: This prompts me to help them regardless Step 6: The world is now made up of people who self-inflict suffering as a way to manipulate others, which suck.
I’m not sure this is an accurate reconstruction, but this is what I can do to the best of my abilities.
I’d rather not encourage arguing with this version of the argument, since I’m not a genuine proponent.
Mostly this is about strategies for engaging non-EAs for effective giving. So it wouldn’t come up much.
Although this does sound like a version of the standard right-of-centre effectiveness-based objection “why bother, giving just causes dependency loops that entrench the problem”—to which I would probably shift to impact mode and explain that AMF donations specifically don’t do that.
Sorry, I understand this is a bit confusing.
I was hesitant to spell it out, because I’m afraid of building a strawman:
My interpretation is that some people have an issue with non-self-oriented wishes or desires, because they can feel like virtue-signalling or guilt-tripping. Expressing things such as “I really want a world without malaria” can be interpreted as condoning the use of suffering as a negotiation tool.
I.e :
Step 1: People are suffering from malaria
Step 2: This prompts me to fight malaria
Step 3: Someone concludes that suffering causes me to help them
Step 4: They self-inflict suffering to them
Step 5: This prompts me to help them regardless
Step 6: The world is now made up of people who self-inflict suffering as a way to manipulate others, which suck.
I’m not sure this is an accurate reconstruction, but this is what I can do to the best of my abilities.
I’d rather not encourage arguing with this version of the argument, since I’m not a genuine proponent.
That’s fair.
Mostly this is about strategies for engaging non-EAs for effective giving. So it wouldn’t come up much.
Although this does sound like a version of the standard right-of-centre effectiveness-based objection “why bother, giving just causes dependency loops that entrench the problem”—to which I would probably shift to impact mode and explain that AMF donations specifically don’t do that.