I agree with this in spirit, but think that in this case it’s completely fine.
a) Presumably, for some people, being zakat compatible has important cultural meaning. I generally think that the EA thing to do is to act within your constraints and belief systems and to do as much good as you can, not to need to tear down all of them.
b) In my opinion, the point of impartiality is “find the most effective ways of helping people”. I do not personally think that GiveDirectly is the most effective way to give, but it’s not at all clear to me that the Yemeni recipients are more or less deserving than any other. Being partial between equivalent categories of doing good effectively seems obviously fine
c) On a meta level, emotional and cultural factors really matter! I think it is a significant mistake for an EA to think that just because something is irrational you need to ignore it (though there are many scenarios where it is high value to try to get past it). If a certain form of giving is more motivating or sustainably or acceptable to your friends and family, it seems likely that you’ll continue to engage with effective giving and be giving in several years, which is a very big factor! People are not fully rational, no matter what they pretend or strive for, and I think that trying to ignore this is a common EA mistake
d) As noted below, this probably just funges with all other GiveDirectly donations and so just doesn’t matter
For what it’s worth, I do agree with your point in principle! Effectiveness is important and valuable and it’s a mistake to lose sight of it. But I don’t agree in this specific context, at least of this donation vs general GiveDirectly
I agree with this in spirit, but think that in this case it’s completely fine. a) Presumably, for some people, being zakat compatible has important cultural meaning. I generally think that the EA thing to do is to act within your constraints and belief systems and to do as much good as you can, not to need to tear down all of them. b) In my opinion, the point of impartiality is “find the most effective ways of helping people”. I do not personally think that GiveDirectly is the most effective way to give, but it’s not at all clear to me that the Yemeni recipients are more or less deserving than any other. Being partial between equivalent categories of doing good effectively seems obviously fine c) On a meta level, emotional and cultural factors really matter! I think it is a significant mistake for an EA to think that just because something is irrational you need to ignore it (though there are many scenarios where it is high value to try to get past it). If a certain form of giving is more motivating or sustainably or acceptable to your friends and family, it seems likely that you’ll continue to engage with effective giving and be giving in several years, which is a very big factor! People are not fully rational, no matter what they pretend or strive for, and I think that trying to ignore this is a common EA mistake d) As noted below, this probably just funges with all other GiveDirectly donations and so just doesn’t matter
For what it’s worth, I do agree with your point in principle! Effectiveness is important and valuable and it’s a mistake to lose sight of it. But I don’t agree in this specific context, at least of this donation vs general GiveDirectly