Thanks for writing this Ian. I read both this and your last post with interest, and like your point about the small fraction of donations we currently capture.
I actually think you understate your case: it’s not just that most people care more about “fuzzies” than “utilons”, but even the most hard-core EA cares deeply about fuzzies. (E.g. there’s basically no one who would not hold open a door for an old lady walking by, even if that time might be better spent spreading bed nets.)
However, the classic answer is to optimize for these things separately, which is exactly what you and your wife have done:
we allocated our charitable giving roughly this way: 50% to GiveWell-recommended charities, 25% to combating homelessness in Washington DC, and 25% to the arts
I’m curious why you don’t like the strategy that you and your wife have followed? It seems preferable to me to have someone give half their donations to a top charity rather than have them give 100% of their donations to a moderately effective charity.
Hi Ben, the answer to that is simple. EA currently says to donors, “give 10% (or whatever amount you’re willing) to the top charities that we recommend. Then do whatever you want with the rest, we don’t care.”
My claim is simply that EA should care about “the rest,” if the goal is to maximize total wellbeing improvement. For many donors, I believe it is not as simple as having two pots, one for which you use your head and one for which you use your heart. In my family’s case, we are interested in maximizing the good we do within the other 50%, subject to those top-level restrictions. That is also true of a large portion of grantmaking foundations with professional staff. It all comes back to my point about EA leaving opportunities for impact on the table.
Thanks for writing this Ian. I read both this and your last post with interest, and like your point about the small fraction of donations we currently capture.
I actually think you understate your case: it’s not just that most people care more about “fuzzies” than “utilons”, but even the most hard-core EA cares deeply about fuzzies. (E.g. there’s basically no one who would not hold open a door for an old lady walking by, even if that time might be better spent spreading bed nets.)
However, the classic answer is to optimize for these things separately, which is exactly what you and your wife have done:
I’m curious why you don’t like the strategy that you and your wife have followed? It seems preferable to me to have someone give half their donations to a top charity rather than have them give 100% of their donations to a moderately effective charity.
Hi Ben, the answer to that is simple. EA currently says to donors, “give 10% (or whatever amount you’re willing) to the top charities that we recommend. Then do whatever you want with the rest, we don’t care.”
My claim is simply that EA should care about “the rest,” if the goal is to maximize total wellbeing improvement. For many donors, I believe it is not as simple as having two pots, one for which you use your head and one for which you use your heart. In my family’s case, we are interested in maximizing the good we do within the other 50%, subject to those top-level restrictions. That is also true of a large portion of grantmaking foundations with professional staff. It all comes back to my point about EA leaving opportunities for impact on the table.
Right, to phrase my question another way: suppose we could either:
Convince someone to give 11% of their income, instead of 10%, to the top charities
Convince someone to make their “non-EA” donations slightly more effective
It seems to me that (1) is both easier and more impactful.
EdIT: Ben Todd said the same thing as me but better.
I would question whether 1 is in fact easier. In the case of most of the people I know, I would guess that it’s not.