In Joey’s example, I can donate $500 to GWWC instead of AMF. If I donate to AMF, AMF gets $500 compared to the world in which i don’t donate. If I donate to GWWC, then AMF gets $1000 compared to the world in which I don’t donate. Clearly, I should donate to GWWC if I care about counterfactual impact. If GWWC donates the $500 directly to AMF, then value has been lost.
The coordination problem is a separate question to how individual organisations should count their own counterfactual impact.
Forget about the organization’s own counterfactual impact for a moment.
Do you agree that, from the world’s perspective, it would be better in Joey’s scenario if GWWC, Charity Science, and TLYCS were to all donate their money directly to AMF?
In Joey’s example, I can donate $500 to GWWC instead of AMF. If I donate to AMF, AMF gets $500 compared to the world in which i don’t donate. If I donate to GWWC, then AMF gets $1000 compared to the world in which I don’t donate. Clearly, I should donate to GWWC if I care about counterfactual impact. If GWWC donates the $500 directly to AMF, then value has been lost.
The coordination problem is a separate question to how individual organisations should count their own counterfactual impact.
Forget about the organization’s own counterfactual impact for a moment.
Do you agree that, from the world’s perspective, it would be better in Joey’s scenario if GWWC, Charity Science, and TLYCS were to all donate their money directly to AMF?
yes