I think the title does match the argument? I understand the post is claiming that in as much as it is possible to evaluate the impact of individuals or decisions, as long as you restrict to ones with positive impact the differences are small, because good actions tend to have credit that is massively shared.
“I understand the post is claiming that in as much as it is possible to evaluate the impact of individuals or decisions, as long as you restrict to ones with positive impact the differences are small, because good actions tend to have credit that is massively shared.”—There’s a distinction between challenges with evaluating differences in impact and whether those impacts exist.
The other two arguments listed in the outline are: “Does this encourage elitism”? and a pragmatic argument that individualized impact calculations are not the best path of action.
I think the title does match the argument? I understand the post is claiming that in as much as it is possible to evaluate the impact of individuals or decisions, as long as you restrict to ones with positive impact the differences are small, because good actions tend to have credit that is massively shared.
“I understand the post is claiming that in as much as it is possible to evaluate the impact of individuals or decisions, as long as you restrict to ones with positive impact the differences are small, because good actions tend to have credit that is massively shared.”—There’s a distinction between challenges with evaluating differences in impact and whether those impacts exist.
The other two arguments listed in the outline are: “Does this encourage elitism”? and a pragmatic argument that individualized impact calculations are not the best path of action.
None of these are the argument made in the title.