I define the ‘common good’ in the same way Will MacAskill defines the good in “The definition of effective altruism”, as what most increases welfare from an impartial perspective. This is only intended as a tentative and approximate definition, which might be revised.
I’m a bit confused by this, because “what most increases welfare” is describing an action, which seems like the wrong type of thing for “the common good” to be. Do you instead mean that the common good is impartial welfare, or similar? This also seems more in line with Will.
One other quibble:
the search for the actions that do the most to contribute to the common good (relative to their cost).
I’m not sure we actually want “relative to their cost” here. On one hand, it might be the case that the actions which are most cost-effective at doing good actually do very little good, but are also very cheap (e.g. see this post by Hanson). Alternatively, maybe the most cost-effective actions are absurdly expensive, so that knowing what they are doesn’t help us.
Rather, it seems better to just say “the search for the actions that do the most to contribute to the common good, given limited resources”. Or even just leave implicit that there are resource constraints.
On one hand, it might be the case that the actions which are most cost-effective at doing good actually do very little good, but are also very cheap (e.g. see this post by Hanson). Alternatively, maybe the most cost-effective actions are absurdly expensive, so that knowing what they are doesn’t help us.
I think the first argument can be rescued by including search costs in the “cost” definition. I agree that the second one cannot be, and is a serious issue with this phrasing.
I’m a bit confused by this, because “what most increases welfare” is describing an action, which seems like the wrong type of thing for “the common good” to be. Do you instead mean that the common good is impartial welfare, or similar? This also seems more in line with Will.
One other quibble:
I’m not sure we actually want “relative to their cost” here. On one hand, it might be the case that the actions which are most cost-effective at doing good actually do very little good, but are also very cheap (e.g. see this post by Hanson). Alternatively, maybe the most cost-effective actions are absurdly expensive, so that knowing what they are doesn’t help us.
Rather, it seems better to just say “the search for the actions that do the most to contribute to the common good, given limited resources”. Or even just leave implicit that there are resource constraints.
I think the first argument can be rescued by including search costs in the “cost” definition. I agree that the second one cannot be, and is a serious issue with this phrasing.