This is a key point, and EJT helpfully shared on twitter an excerpt from Reasons and Persons in which Parfit clearly explains the fallacy behind the āshare of the total viewā that Wenar seems to be uncritically assuming here. (ETA: this the first of Parfitās famous āFive mistakes in moral mathematicsā; one of the most important parts of arguably the most important work of 20th century moral philosophy.)
This is foundational stuff for the philosophical tradition upon which EA draws, and casts an ironic light on Wenarās later criticism: āThe crucial-but-absent Socratic meta-question is, āDo I know enough about what Iām talking about to make recommendations that will be high stakes for other peopleās lives?āā
I agree that when it comes to decision making, Leifs objection doesnāt work very well.
However, when it comes to communication, I think there is a point here (although Iām not sure it was the one Leif was making). If Givewell communicates about the donation and how many lives you saved, and donāt mention the aid workers and mothers who put up nets, arenāt they selling them short here, and dismissing their importance?
In Parfits experiment, obviously you should go on the four person mission and help save the hundred lives. But if you then went on to do a book tour and touted what a hero you are for saving the hundred lives, and donāt mention the other three people, you are being a jerk.
I could imagine an aid worker in Uganda being kind of annoyed that they spent weeks working full time in sweltering heat handing out malaria nets for low pay, and then watching some tech guy in america take all the credit for the lifesaving work. It could hurt EAās ability to connect with the third world.
This is a key point, and EJT helpfully shared on twitter an excerpt from Reasons and Persons in which Parfit clearly explains the fallacy behind the āshare of the total viewā that Wenar seems to be uncritically assuming here. (ETA: this the first of Parfitās famous āFive mistakes in moral mathematicsā; one of the most important parts of arguably the most important work of 20th century moral philosophy.)
This is foundational stuff for the philosophical tradition upon which EA draws, and casts an ironic light on Wenarās later criticism: āThe crucial-but-absent Socratic meta-question is, āDo I know enough about what Iām talking about to make recommendations that will be high stakes for other peopleās lives?āā
I agree that when it comes to decision making, Leifs objection doesnāt work very well.
However, when it comes to communication, I think there is a point here (although Iām not sure it was the one Leif was making). If Givewell communicates about the donation and how many lives you saved, and donāt mention the aid workers and mothers who put up nets, arenāt they selling them short here, and dismissing their importance?
In Parfits experiment, obviously you should go on the four person mission and help save the hundred lives. But if you then went on to do a book tour and touted what a hero you are for saving the hundred lives, and donāt mention the other three people, you are being a jerk.
I could imagine an aid worker in Uganda being kind of annoyed that they spent weeks working full time in sweltering heat handing out malaria nets for low pay, and then watching some tech guy in america take all the credit for the lifesaving work. It could hurt EAās ability to connect with the third world.