Executive summary: The post argues, confidently and polemically, that earning to give is an underrated and often superior way for most people to do good, because large, sustained donations typically outweigh the impact of personal lifestyle changes or pursuing “sexy” direct-impact jobs.
Key points:
The author claims common moral intuitions about “being a good person” focus on visible kindness and lifestyle choices, but perform poorly when judged by actual impact.
They argue that high earners who donate large sums, such as ~$200K+ per year to effective charities, may be among the most ethical people by a consequentialist standard.
The post asserts that for most people, money is the strongest lever for change, unless one is unusually talented or positioned to have outsized direct impact.
The author criticizes the tendency within EA spaces to prioritize direct EA jobs over earning to give, suggesting this ignores basic economic specialization.
Using illustrative income scenarios, they argue that improving earnings can multiply donation capacity far more than most personal ethical sacrifices.
The post acknowledges second-order effects of certain careers but contends that objections often rely on motivated reasoning and lack evidence that alternatives outperform large-scale effective donations.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The post argues, confidently and polemically, that earning to give is an underrated and often superior way for most people to do good, because large, sustained donations typically outweigh the impact of personal lifestyle changes or pursuing “sexy” direct-impact jobs.
Key points:
The author claims common moral intuitions about “being a good person” focus on visible kindness and lifestyle choices, but perform poorly when judged by actual impact.
They argue that high earners who donate large sums, such as ~$200K+ per year to effective charities, may be among the most ethical people by a consequentialist standard.
The post asserts that for most people, money is the strongest lever for change, unless one is unusually talented or positioned to have outsized direct impact.
The author criticizes the tendency within EA spaces to prioritize direct EA jobs over earning to give, suggesting this ignores basic economic specialization.
Using illustrative income scenarios, they argue that improving earnings can multiply donation capacity far more than most personal ethical sacrifices.
The post acknowledges second-order effects of certain careers but contends that objections often rely on motivated reasoning and lack evidence that alternatives outperform large-scale effective donations.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.