I can see people arguing that they shouldnāt have to donate to help stop malaria. (I get that all the time.)
I cannot, however, see anyone genuinely advocating for a pro-malaria stance?
(As opposed to for example peace activism where you get people genuinely advocating for pro-war stances)
Is this a thing in EA? Some people are pro-malaria?
Iād hope that even the āmeat-eater problemā lot recognise that the set of effective methods to reduce animal suffering donāt include pro-malaria advocacy.
Sorry, I understand this is a bit confusing. I was hesitant to spell it out, because Iām 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 āI really want a world without malariaā 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.
Iām not sure this is an accurate reconstruction, but this is what I can do to the best of my abilities.
Iād rather not encourage arguing with this version of the argument, since Iām not a genuine proponent.
Mostly this is about strategies for engaging non-EAs for effective giving. So it wouldnāt come up much.
Although this does sound like a version of the standard right-of-centre effectiveness-based objection āwhy bother, giving just causes dependency loops that entrench the problemāāto which I would probably shift to impact mode and explain that AMF donations specifically donāt do that.
I can see people arguing that they shouldnāt have to donate to help stop malaria. (I get that all the time.)
I cannot, however, see anyone genuinely advocating for a pro-malaria stance?
(As opposed to for example peace activism where you get people genuinely advocating for pro-war stances)
Is this a thing in EA? Some people are pro-malaria?
Iād hope that even the āmeat-eater problemā lot recognise that the set of effective methods to reduce animal suffering donāt include pro-malaria advocacy.
Sorry, I understand this is a bit confusing.
I was hesitant to spell it out, because Iām 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 āI really want a world without malariaā 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.
Iām not sure this is an accurate reconstruction, but this is what I can do to the best of my abilities.
Iād rather not encourage arguing with this version of the argument, since Iām not a genuine proponent.
Thatās fair.
Mostly this is about strategies for engaging non-EAs for effective giving. So it wouldnāt come up much.
Although this does sound like a version of the standard right-of-centre effectiveness-based objection āwhy bother, giving just causes dependency loops that entrench the problemāāto which I would probably shift to impact mode and explain that AMF donations specifically donāt do that.