I found this post interesting overall. I have a few thoughts on the argument as a whole, but want to focus on one thing in particular:
[GiveWell] recommended to Good Ventures that it not fully fund GiveWell’s top charities; they were worried that this would be an unfair way to save lives.
I don’t see this as an accurate summary of the reasons GiveWell outlined in the linked blogpost. The stated reason is that in the long-term, fully funding every strong giving opportunity they see would be counterproductive because their behavior might influence other donors’ behavior:
We do not want to be in the habit of – or gain a reputation for – recommending that Good Ventures fill the entire funding gap of every strong giving opportunity we see. In the long run, we feel this would create incentives for other donors to avoid the causes and grants we’re interested in; this, in turn, could lead to a much lower-than-optimal amount of total donor interest in the things we find most promising.
Despite this, that year they recommended that Good Ventures fully funds the highest-value opportunities:
For the highest-value giving opportunities, we want to recommend that Good Ventures funds 100%. It is more important to us to ensure these opportunities are funded than to set incentives appropriately.
The post itself goes into much greater detail about these considerations.
It might be helpful if you linked to specific parts of the longer series which addressed this argument, or summarized the argument. Even if it would be good for people to read the entire thing it hardly seems like something we can expect as a precondition.
Whether you think it’s a rationalization or not, the claim in the OP is misleading at best. It sounds like you’re paraphrasing them as saying that they don’t recommend that Good Ventures fully fund their charities because this is an unfair way to save lives. GiveWell says nothing of the sort in the very link you use to back up your claim. The reason the you assign to them instead, that they think that this would be unfair, is absurd and isn’t backed up by anything in the OP.
I found this post interesting overall. I have a few thoughts on the argument as a whole, but want to focus on one thing in particular:
I don’t see this as an accurate summary of the reasons GiveWell outlined in the linked blogpost. The stated reason is that in the long-term, fully funding every strong giving opportunity they see would be counterproductive because their behavior might influence other donors’ behavior:
Despite this, that year they recommended that Good Ventures fully funds the highest-value opportunities:
The post itself goes into much greater detail about these considerations.
This isn’t a coherent rationalization for reasons covered in tedious detail in the longer series.
It might be helpful if you linked to specific parts of the longer series which addressed this argument, or summarized the argument. Even if it would be good for people to read the entire thing it hardly seems like something we can expect as a precondition.
Whether you think it’s a rationalization or not, the claim in the OP is misleading at best. It sounds like you’re paraphrasing them as saying that they don’t recommend that Good Ventures fully fund their charities because this is an unfair way to save lives. GiveWell says nothing of the sort in the very link you use to back up your claim. The reason the you assign to them instead, that they think that this would be unfair, is absurd and isn’t backed up by anything in the OP.