People often criticise GWWC for bad reasons. In particular, people harshly criticise it for not being perfect, despite not doing anything much of value themselves. Perhaps we should somewhat discount such armchair reasoning.
However, if we do so, we should pay extra attention when people who have donated hundreds of millions of dollars, a majority of their net worth, and far more than most of us will, have harsh criticism of giving pledges.
“When I talk to young people who seem destined for great success, I tell them to forget about charities and giving. Concentrate on your family and getting rich—which I found very hard work. I personally and the world at large are very glad you were more interested in computer software than the underprivileged when you were young. And don’t forget that those who don’t make money never become philanthropists.”
There is certainly truth in this.
But not all of Wilson’s giving was in areas suitable for effective altruism. In particular, donating to the Catholic Church arguably causes active harm. Preserving monuments and wildlife reserves is at least a good distance away from optimal.
I think the strongest objection to his objection is that becoming rich doesn’t make the world a better place in itself. Even if you make other people richer in the process, it’s not a clear-cut world improvement. Especially if you consider replaceability effects and negative externalities from certain forms of business, making rich people more altruistic, and more effectively altruistic, could be more important than making more rich people.
not all of Wilson’s giving was in areas suitable for effective altruism. In particular, donating to the Catholic Church arguably causes active harm.
Arguably donating to global health causes active harm (via the effect on fertility). Arguably veganism causes active harm (via wild animal suffering). Arguably donating to Xrisk causes active harm (ok, not so clear on the mechanism here, but I’m sure people have argued it).
Yet these last three causes are EA causes. So merely ‘arguably’ causing active harm cannot be enough. What matters is how much actual good it does. And I think it is very plausible that the Catholic Church actually does a lot of good.
Yes, perhaps donating to the Church is less effective than donating to SCI. On the other hand, it could be significantly less effective and him still have done more good with his donations than most EAs. Giving a lot more money slightly less efficiently does more good to others than giving a small amount of money very efficiently.
More importantly, this doesn’t really affect the argument. In general we should pay more attention to criticism when the critic is overcoming social desirability bias. And in this case, even if you disagree with his donation choices, he clearly scores very highly on altruism, which makes his criticism of our attempts to spread it all the more potent. Given
Actually, my point was that donating to the Catholic Church does more harm than good, not just that it causes harm. Perhaps you should look up how little it spends on things like poverty relief, how much money it absorbs from presenting itself as an official institution of morality while spreading supernatural superstition and promoting socially harmful policies. I would probably pay money to make the Catholic Church poorer, though certainly not at a 1:1 exchange rate.
I think the other EA causes you mention, while mixed blessings, have a much better profile.
I do agree with Wilson’s core argument, but would still point out that his money didn’t come out of thin air, and neither would the money of other rich people. A lot of that is competing for profit margins, that is, a successfull hedge fund manager replaces other hedge fund managers. It can therefore be more effective to try to make rich people more altruistic rather than to make more people rich.
People often criticise GWWC for bad reasons. In particular, people harshly criticise it for not being perfect, despite not doing anything much of value themselves. Perhaps we should somewhat discount such armchair reasoning.
However, if we do so, we should pay extra attention when people who have donated hundreds of millions of dollars, a majority of their net worth, and far more than most of us will, have harsh criticism of giving pledges.
From his email:
“When I talk to young people who seem destined for great success, I tell them to forget about charities and giving. Concentrate on your family and getting rich—which I found very hard work. I personally and the world at large are very glad you were more interested in computer software than the underprivileged when you were young. And don’t forget that those who don’t make money never become philanthropists.”
There is certainly truth in this.
But not all of Wilson’s giving was in areas suitable for effective altruism. In particular, donating to the Catholic Church arguably causes active harm. Preserving monuments and wildlife reserves is at least a good distance away from optimal.
I think the strongest objection to his objection is that becoming rich doesn’t make the world a better place in itself. Even if you make other people richer in the process, it’s not a clear-cut world improvement. Especially if you consider replaceability effects and negative externalities from certain forms of business, making rich people more altruistic, and more effectively altruistic, could be more important than making more rich people.
Arguably donating to global health causes active harm (via the effect on fertility). Arguably veganism causes active harm (via wild animal suffering). Arguably donating to Xrisk causes active harm (ok, not so clear on the mechanism here, but I’m sure people have argued it).
Yet these last three causes are EA causes. So merely ‘arguably’ causing active harm cannot be enough. What matters is how much actual good it does. And I think it is very plausible that the Catholic Church actually does a lot of good.
Yes, perhaps donating to the Church is less effective than donating to SCI. On the other hand, it could be significantly less effective and him still have done more good with his donations than most EAs. Giving a lot more money slightly less efficiently does more good to others than giving a small amount of money very efficiently.
More importantly, this doesn’t really affect the argument. In general we should pay more attention to criticism when the critic is overcoming social desirability bias. And in this case, even if you disagree with his donation choices, he clearly scores very highly on altruism, which makes his criticism of our attempts to spread it all the more potent. Given
Actually, my point was that donating to the Catholic Church does more harm than good, not just that it causes harm. Perhaps you should look up how little it spends on things like poverty relief, how much money it absorbs from presenting itself as an official institution of morality while spreading supernatural superstition and promoting socially harmful policies. I would probably pay money to make the Catholic Church poorer, though certainly not at a 1:1 exchange rate.
I think the other EA causes you mention, while mixed blessings, have a much better profile.
I do agree with Wilson’s core argument, but would still point out that his money didn’t come out of thin air, and neither would the money of other rich people. A lot of that is competing for profit margins, that is, a successfull hedge fund manager replaces other hedge fund managers. It can therefore be more effective to try to make rich people more altruistic rather than to make more people rich.