(Note that this comment is quick and not super well thought out. I hope to research and think about it more deeply at some point in the future, and maybe write it up in a better form).
As with many articles critical of EA, this article spends a while arguing against the early EA focus on earning to give:
To that end, I heard an EA-sympathetic graduate student explaining to a law student that she shouldnât be a public defender, because it would be morally more beneficial for her to work at a large corporate law firm and donate most of her salary to an anti-malaria charity. The argument he made was that if she didnât become a public defender, someone else would fill the post, but if she didnât take the position as a Wall Street lawyer, the person who did take it probably wouldnât donate their income to charity, thus by taking the public defender job instead of the Wall Street job she was essentially murdering the people whose lives she could have saved by donating a Wall Street income to charity.1
...
MacAskill wrote a moral philosophy paper arguing that even if we âsuppose that the typical petrochemical company harms others by adding to the overall production of CO2 and thereby speeding up anthropogenic climate changeâ (a thing we do not need to âsupposeâ), if working for one would be âmore lucrativeâ than any other career, âthereby enabling [a person] to donate moreâ then âthe fact that she would be working for a company that harms others through producing CO2â wouldnât be âa reason against her pursuing that careerâ since it âonly makes others worse off if more CO2 is produced as a result of her working in that job than as a result of her replacement working in that job.â (You can of course see here the basic outlines of an EA argument in favor of becoming a concentration camp guard, if doing so was lucrative and someone else would take the job if you didnât. But MacAskill says that concentration camp guards are âreprehensibleâ while it is merely âmorally controversialâ to take jobs like working for the fossil fuel industry, the arms industry, or making money âspeculating on wheat, thereby increasing price volatility and disrupting the livelihoods of the global poor.â It remains unclear how one draws the line between âreprehensiblyâ causing other peopleâs deaths and merely âcontroversiallyâ causing them.)4
Itâs a little frustrating to me that EA orgs and public figures have basically conceded this argument and tend to shy away from actively defending earning to give as a standard EA path. I think the utilitarian argument that the quoted graduate student was making is basically correct (with the need to properly account for oneâs career decision marginally impacting salaries in your given field, and whether one is likely to be a more effective worker than the person one is displacing). On the flip side, I think the deontological argument that NJR is making doesnât really hold up that well under scrutiny? Current Affairs is a print magazine, printing and mailing thousands of copies of it every month contributes to resource usage and climate change. NJR presumably is okay with this because he thinks that the benefits of educating and informing his readership exceed the harms of his resource usage. In the same way, I think working in a job that produces some negative harms can be okay if the net benefits of donating oneâs income substantially outweigh those harms. I think this gets even more stark when you try and actually think through the human scale of it all. Imagine having to tell ten thousand parents that the reason their kids wonât get anti-malaria pills this year is that you working as a stock trader violates the categorical imperative. It sounds absurd, but thatâs the kind of thing weâre talking about here.
Something that I do think I and NJR would agree on is that itâs really screwed up that the world is in this situation to start with. Thereâs something deeply unjust about a random American lawyer getting to decide whether people die from malaria based on their career and donation decisions. But we canât wave a magic wand and change that at the drop of a hat. And choosing to focus only on efforts to create systemic change means not getting lifesaving medicine to a ton of people who need it right now. I wish critics engaged more deeply with those really hard tradeoffs, and that EAs did a better job of articulating them. Just trying to sidestep the conversation about earning to give really undersells the moral challenge and stakes weâre dealing with.
(Note that this comment is quick and not super well thought out. I hope to research and think about it more deeply at some point in the future, and maybe write it up in a better form).
As with many articles critical of EA, this article spends a while arguing against the early EA focus on earning to give:
Itâs a little frustrating to me that EA orgs and public figures have basically conceded this argument and tend to shy away from actively defending earning to give as a standard EA path. I think the utilitarian argument that the quoted graduate student was making is basically correct (with the need to properly account for oneâs career decision marginally impacting salaries in your given field, and whether one is likely to be a more effective worker than the person one is displacing). On the flip side, I think the deontological argument that NJR is making doesnât really hold up that well under scrutiny? Current Affairs is a print magazine, printing and mailing thousands of copies of it every month contributes to resource usage and climate change. NJR presumably is okay with this because he thinks that the benefits of educating and informing his readership exceed the harms of his resource usage. In the same way, I think working in a job that produces some negative harms can be okay if the net benefits of donating oneâs income substantially outweigh those harms. I think this gets even more stark when you try and actually think through the human scale of it all. Imagine having to tell ten thousand parents that the reason their kids wonât get anti-malaria pills this year is that you working as a stock trader violates the categorical imperative. It sounds absurd, but thatâs the kind of thing weâre talking about here.
Something that I do think I and NJR would agree on is that itâs really screwed up that the world is in this situation to start with. Thereâs something deeply unjust about a random American lawyer getting to decide whether people die from malaria based on their career and donation decisions. But we canât wave a magic wand and change that at the drop of a hat. And choosing to focus only on efforts to create systemic change means not getting lifesaving medicine to a ton of people who need it right now. I wish critics engaged more deeply with those really hard tradeoffs, and that EAs did a better job of articulating them. Just trying to sidestep the conversation about earning to give really undersells the moral challenge and stakes weâre dealing with.