I think this is an interesting question, and I don’t know the answer.
I think two quite distinct ideas are being conflated in your post though: (i) ‘earning to give’ and (ii) the GWWC 10% pledge.
These concepts are very different in my head.
‘Earning to give’: When choosing a career with the aim of doing good, some people should pick a career to maximize their income (perhaps subject to some ethical constraints), and then give a lot of it away to effective causes (probably a lot more than 10%). This idea tells you which jobs you should decide to work in.
GWWC pledge: Pretty much whoever you are, if you’ve got a decent income in a rich country, you should give 10% of it away to effective causes. This idea says nothing about which jobs you should be working in.
I think these two ideas are very different.
‘Earning to give’ gets a lot of criticism from people outside EA, but I don’t see much criticism of the idea of donating 10% of your income. Sure, you can call the amount arbitrary and dispute the extent to which it is an obligation, but I think even major critics of EA often concede that the 10% pledge is still an admirable thing to do.
I completely agree that earning to give and the GWWC pledge are conceptually distinct. Ideally, anyone dealing with these ideas would treat them as such.
Where I disagree with you is that my post is conceptually ‘conflating’ these two ideas. Instead, my post is identifying that a bundle of associated ideas, including the GWWC pledge and earning to give, are prominent parts of EA’s reputation.
Here is an analogy to the point I am making:
When people think of engineering, they think of math, chemicals and robots.
When people think of Effective Altruism, they think of earning to give and donating 10% of your income to effective charities
The abstract relationship I am drawing with this analogy is that people who are not part of a specific community often have a shallow, almost symbolic view of major topics in the community. They do not necessarily come to a clear understanding of how all the parts fit together into a cohesive whole. My post is not at all arguing the virtues of earning to give or a 10% pledge. It is arguing that these two topics are part of a bundle of ideas that people associate with EA’s brand or reputation, in response to the debate suggested by the two seemingly contradictory claims I quoted at the top of the post.
I don’t think my post represents the critics it cites as saying donating 10% of one’s income to charity is a bad thing to do. What they critique is a perception of absolutism and the tension inherent in setting any specific standard for such a pledge, given various forms of inequality.
On the one hand, this doesn’t exactly reflect the true beliefs of EA thought leaders: MacAskill calls for the ultra-wealthy to donate as much as 99% of their income, and Giving What We Can has a Trial Pledge option, which is a way to make a smaller and more time-limited commitment. Nobody is stopping you from donating 10% to an effective charity and an extra 2% to the opera.
But psychologically, when people are processing the complex bundle of ideas that EA has to offer, in the context of a media appearance or magazine article, these conceptual distinctions can be lost. People really will come away with reactions like:
So you’re saying I have to donate at least 10% or I’m a bad person?
So you’re saying that everything I donate has to go to EA charities and I can’t donate to anything else?
So you’re saying that anything I donate to other causes is basically worthless compared to donating to EA causes?
So you’re saying that my knowledge and intuition about the charities I’m interested in and the good they do in the world is valueless compared to your big fancy spreadsheets?
So you’re saying that [my favorite charity] isn’t effective? What the hell do you know about it???
Isn’t everybody who’s donating to charity earning to give?
And EAs will argue with them in a way that exacerbates these conflicts.
Recognizing the ways that a call for a 10% donation to effective charities can have a negative psychological impact on potential donors, relative to a minor modification to a 2%/8% split, is what my articles are about more broadly. This specific post is just meant to look holistically at how the 10% pledge, and its bundle of associated ideas, people and organizations, is represented in media coverage of EA.
I think this is an interesting question, and I don’t know the answer.
I think two quite distinct ideas are being conflated in your post though: (i) ‘earning to give’ and (ii) the GWWC 10% pledge.
These concepts are very different in my head.
‘Earning to give’: When choosing a career with the aim of doing good, some people should pick a career to maximize their income (perhaps subject to some ethical constraints), and then give a lot of it away to effective causes (probably a lot more than 10%). This idea tells you which jobs you should decide to work in.
GWWC pledge: Pretty much whoever you are, if you’ve got a decent income in a rich country, you should give 10% of it away to effective causes. This idea says nothing about which jobs you should be working in.
I think these two ideas are very different.
‘Earning to give’ gets a lot of criticism from people outside EA, but I don’t see much criticism of the idea of donating 10% of your income. Sure, you can call the amount arbitrary and dispute the extent to which it is an obligation, but I think even major critics of EA often concede that the 10% pledge is still an admirable thing to do.
Thank you for your response.
I completely agree that earning to give and the GWWC pledge are conceptually distinct. Ideally, anyone dealing with these ideas would treat them as such.
Where I disagree with you is that my post is conceptually ‘conflating’ these two ideas. Instead, my post is identifying that a bundle of associated ideas, including the GWWC pledge and earning to give, are prominent parts of EA’s reputation.
Here is an analogy to the point I am making:
When people think of engineering, they think of math, chemicals and robots.
When people think of Effective Altruism, they think of earning to give and donating 10% of your income to effective charities
The abstract relationship I am drawing with this analogy is that people who are not part of a specific community often have a shallow, almost symbolic view of major topics in the community. They do not necessarily come to a clear understanding of how all the parts fit together into a cohesive whole. My post is not at all arguing the virtues of earning to give or a 10% pledge. It is arguing that these two topics are part of a bundle of ideas that people associate with EA’s brand or reputation, in response to the debate suggested by the two seemingly contradictory claims I quoted at the top of the post.
I don’t think my post represents the critics it cites as saying donating 10% of one’s income to charity is a bad thing to do. What they critique is a perception of absolutism and the tension inherent in setting any specific standard for such a pledge, given various forms of inequality.
On the one hand, this doesn’t exactly reflect the true beliefs of EA thought leaders: MacAskill calls for the ultra-wealthy to donate as much as 99% of their income, and Giving What We Can has a Trial Pledge option, which is a way to make a smaller and more time-limited commitment. Nobody is stopping you from donating 10% to an effective charity and an extra 2% to the opera.
But psychologically, when people are processing the complex bundle of ideas that EA has to offer, in the context of a media appearance or magazine article, these conceptual distinctions can be lost. People really will come away with reactions like:
So you’re saying I have to donate at least 10% or I’m a bad person?
So you’re saying that everything I donate has to go to EA charities and I can’t donate to anything else?
So you’re saying that anything I donate to other causes is basically worthless compared to donating to EA causes?
So you’re saying that my knowledge and intuition about the charities I’m interested in and the good they do in the world is valueless compared to your big fancy spreadsheets?
So you’re saying that [my favorite charity] isn’t effective? What the hell do you know about it???
Isn’t everybody who’s donating to charity earning to give?
And EAs will argue with them in a way that exacerbates these conflicts.
Recognizing the ways that a call for a 10% donation to effective charities can have a negative psychological impact on potential donors, relative to a minor modification to a 2%/8% split, is what my articles are about more broadly. This specific post is just meant to look holistically at how the 10% pledge, and its bundle of associated ideas, people and organizations, is represented in media coverage of EA.