I don’t know how philosophically sound they are, but the following rules, taken from the RP moral parliament tool, would end up splitting donations among multiple causes:
Maximize Minimum; “Sometimes termed the ‘Rawlsian Social Welfare Function’, this method maximizes the payoff for the least-satisfied worldview. This method treats utilities for all worldviews as if they fall on the same scale, despite the fact that some worldviews see more avenues for value than others. The number of parliamentarians assigned to each worldview doesn’t matter because the least satisfied parliamentarian is decisive.”
Moral Marketplace: “This method gives each parliamentarian a slice of the budget to allocate as they each see fit, then combines each’s chosen allocation into one shared portfolio. This process is relatively insensitive to considerations of decreasing cost-effectiveness. For more formal details, see this paper.”
There are a few other other voting/bargaining style views they have that can also lead to splitting.
I don’t really have anything intelligent to say about whether or not it makes sense to apply these rules for individual donations, or whether these rules make sense at all, but I thought they were worth mentioning.
Thank you very much, I hadn’t seen that the moral parliament calculator had implemented all of those.
Moral Marketplace strikes me as quite dubious in the context of allocating a single person’s donations, though I’m not sure it’s totally illogical.
Maximize Minimum is a nonsensically stupid choice here. A theory with 80% probability, another with 19%, and another with 0.000001% get equal consideration? I can force someone who believes in this to give all their donations to any arbitrary cause by making up an astronomically improbable theory that will be very dissatisfied if they don’t, e.g. “the universe is ruled by a shrimp deity who will torture you and 10^^10 others for eternity unless you donate all your money to shrimp welfare”. You can be 99.9999...% sure this isn’t true but never 100% sure, so this gets a seat in your parliament.
I don’t know how philosophically sound they are, but the following rules, taken from the RP moral parliament tool, would end up splitting donations among multiple causes:
Maximize Minimum; “Sometimes termed the ‘Rawlsian Social Welfare Function’, this method maximizes the payoff for the least-satisfied worldview. This method treats utilities for all worldviews as if they fall on the same scale, despite the fact that some worldviews see more avenues for value than others. The number of parliamentarians assigned to each worldview doesn’t matter because the least satisfied parliamentarian is decisive.”
Moral Marketplace: “This method gives each parliamentarian a slice of the budget to allocate as they each see fit, then combines each’s chosen allocation into one shared portfolio. This process is relatively insensitive to considerations of decreasing cost-effectiveness. For more formal details, see this paper.”
There are a few other other voting/bargaining style views they have that can also lead to splitting.
I don’t really have anything intelligent to say about whether or not it makes sense to apply these rules for individual donations, or whether these rules make sense at all, but I thought they were worth mentioning.
Thank you very much, I hadn’t seen that the moral parliament calculator had implemented all of those.
Moral Marketplace strikes me as quite dubious in the context of allocating a single person’s donations, though I’m not sure it’s totally illogical.
Maximize Minimum is a nonsensically stupid choice here. A theory with 80% probability, another with 19%, and another with 0.000001% get equal consideration? I can force someone who believes in this to give all their donations to any arbitrary cause by making up an astronomically improbable theory that will be very dissatisfied if they don’t, e.g. “the universe is ruled by a shrimp deity who will torture you and 10^^10 others for eternity unless you donate all your money to shrimp welfare”. You can be 99.9999...% sure this isn’t true but never 100% sure, so this gets a seat in your parliament.