Executive summary: The author argues that most common ways of describing cause areas as “neglected” are unhelpful, and proposes instead evaluating neglectedness relative to realistic alternative donation options and the moral boundaries of a donor’s own concern.
Key points:
The author distinguishes two common notions of neglectedness—relative to an ideal funding level and relative to other causes—and argues that both are generally uninformative for practical philanthropic decisions.
Claims that an area is neglected compared to what it “should” receive are described as trivially true for nearly all causes, given fixed overall charitable giving.
Comparisons between cause areas are often arbitrary, since any area can be framed as underfunded or overfunded depending on the chosen comparator.
The author suggests that neglectedness should instead be assessed relative to realistic alternative causes that donors are actually choosing between.
Greater specificity within broad cause areas (e.g., sub-areas within climate) is argued to make neglectedness comparisons more meaningful.
As a heuristic, the author proposes looking at which moral patients lie at the edge of a donor’s circle of concern, suggesting that groups near this boundary tend to be more neglected.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The author argues that most common ways of describing cause areas as “neglected” are unhelpful, and proposes instead evaluating neglectedness relative to realistic alternative donation options and the moral boundaries of a donor’s own concern.
Key points:
The author distinguishes two common notions of neglectedness—relative to an ideal funding level and relative to other causes—and argues that both are generally uninformative for practical philanthropic decisions.
Claims that an area is neglected compared to what it “should” receive are described as trivially true for nearly all causes, given fixed overall charitable giving.
Comparisons between cause areas are often arbitrary, since any area can be framed as underfunded or overfunded depending on the chosen comparator.
The author suggests that neglectedness should instead be assessed relative to realistic alternative causes that donors are actually choosing between.
Greater specificity within broad cause areas (e.g., sub-areas within climate) is argued to make neglectedness comparisons more meaningful.
As a heuristic, the author proposes looking at which moral patients lie at the edge of a donor’s circle of concern, suggesting that groups near this boundary tend to be more neglected.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.