David Mathers🔸 comments on GiveWell may have made 1 billion dollars of harmful grants, and Ambitious Impact incubated 8 harmful organisations via increasing factory-farming?

[David Mathers🔸]

I’d distinguish here between actions and reasons for action. The action is not conventionally immoral, but the reason for action is. I think this is probably a significant distinction, though how it is significant doesn’t feel very clear to me.

[NickLaing]

I don’t understand this distinction really, but I’m not great at the nuances of moral philosophy. Which action do you not think is “conventionally immoral?”

[David Mathers🔸]

Not giving to global health charities.

[NickLaing]

Thanks yes that’s an interesting one. I understand the situation now and maybe it does matter to some degree, although like you I cant understand how it to what degree.

I think if you ask people a question like “do you think it’s immoral to stop giving to global health charities because they may peoples lives they may harm animals” then almost everyone would consider that conventionally immoral.

If you ask people “do you think it’s immoral to choose not stop giving to charities which save peoples lives” that might slip through as not immoral yes, but only because people would automatically assume other reasons for not taking that action.