We realize that some people do genuinely believe it’s the best way to help others, but it’s far enough from the goals of our project that we think people who want support in sticking to their goals of donation for that cause should instead connect with the many existing communities that favor funding evangelism.
While the Pledge was originally focused on global poverty, since 2014 it has been cause-neutral. Members commit to donate to the organizations they believe are most effective at improving the lives of others.
Specifically, originally the pledge did not include animal welfare groups, but was later ‘amended’ to include them. Is there a principled reason to include animal welfare, but not religious outreach? They seem quite similar:
1) Both ingroups have (by their lights) strong reasons to think what they are doing is literally the most important thing in the world.
2) Many/most people agree with premises that logically imply the importance of both causes (i.e. many people are religious and believe in heaven, and many people believe animal cruelty is bad)
3) Both causes are seen as somewhat wierd by most people, despite 2)
4) Both causes are quite far from the original stated and de facto goals of GWWC, namely helping people in the third world.
Giving What We Can has always emphasized that the evidence points to some interventions being much more effective than others, although it’s increased the scope of interventions it now encourages members to consider.
In keeping with the “evidence and reason” basis of effective altruism, we encourage people towards cause areas that hold up well under at least reason even if there is not yet evidence. For example, there’s plenty of scientific evidence on how animals respond behaviorally and neurologically to stimuli that would be painful to humans, so it seems reasonable to conclude they do experience pain, and to consider whether interventions aimed at reducing that pain might be more effective than interventions aimed at other morally relevant populations. While the evidence on something like policy change or preventing GCRs isn’t nearly as established, because they’re about trying to cause or prevent something that hasn’t happened yet, we think there is often good reasoning behind efforts in these areas. We see evangelism as different because believing that people who are currently alive will continue to be moral patients after we can no longer observe any evidence of them having continued consciousness, and that their holding specific religious beliefs is essential to their wellbeing in the afterlife, is called “faith” because it doesn’t fully rest on either evidence or reason.
I agree there’s not a terribly bright line here, and we could find more cases that could plausibly go either way. There are also more causes that some people consider best but that Giving What We Can would not accept towards the pledge, like white supremacy or destruction of the world to prevent future suffering.
Presumably, GWWC did not want to exclude EA cause areas outside of global poverty. Since animal welfare is an EA cause area, presumably it did not want to exclude it.
1-3 applies to nearly all EA cause areas to varying degrees, including global poverty. The difference, of course, is that EA cause areas (including animal welfare) are supported by evidence and reason, while religious outreach is not.
Specifically, “animal cruelty is bad” is a well argued position, making it very different from a religious belief. See Animal Liberation by Peter Singer.
What happened in those cases?
Religious evangelism is not counted toward the Giving What We Can pledge. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2015/11/giving-what-we-can-people-faith/
We realize that some people do genuinely believe it’s the best way to help others, but it’s far enough from the goals of our project that we think people who want support in sticking to their goals of donation for that cause should instead connect with the many existing communities that favor funding evangelism.
According to this article on the pledge:
Specifically, originally the pledge did not include animal welfare groups, but was later ‘amended’ to include them. Is there a principled reason to include animal welfare, but not religious outreach? They seem quite similar:
1) Both ingroups have (by their lights) strong reasons to think what they are doing is literally the most important thing in the world.
2) Many/most people agree with premises that logically imply the importance of both causes (i.e. many people are religious and believe in heaven, and many people believe animal cruelty is bad)
3) Both causes are seen as somewhat wierd by most people, despite 2)
4) Both causes are quite far from the original stated and de facto goals of GWWC, namely helping people in the third world.
Giving What We Can has always emphasized that the evidence points to some interventions being much more effective than others, although it’s increased the scope of interventions it now encourages members to consider.
In keeping with the “evidence and reason” basis of effective altruism, we encourage people towards cause areas that hold up well under at least reason even if there is not yet evidence. For example, there’s plenty of scientific evidence on how animals respond behaviorally and neurologically to stimuli that would be painful to humans, so it seems reasonable to conclude they do experience pain, and to consider whether interventions aimed at reducing that pain might be more effective than interventions aimed at other morally relevant populations. While the evidence on something like policy change or preventing GCRs isn’t nearly as established, because they’re about trying to cause or prevent something that hasn’t happened yet, we think there is often good reasoning behind efforts in these areas. We see evangelism as different because believing that people who are currently alive will continue to be moral patients after we can no longer observe any evidence of them having continued consciousness, and that their holding specific religious beliefs is essential to their wellbeing in the afterlife, is called “faith” because it doesn’t fully rest on either evidence or reason.
I agree there’s not a terribly bright line here, and we could find more cases that could plausibly go either way. There are also more causes that some people consider best but that Giving What We Can would not accept towards the pledge, like white supremacy or destruction of the world to prevent future suffering.
Presumably, GWWC did not want to exclude EA cause areas outside of global poverty. Since animal welfare is an EA cause area, presumably it did not want to exclude it.
1-3 applies to nearly all EA cause areas to varying degrees, including global poverty. The difference, of course, is that EA cause areas (including animal welfare) are supported by evidence and reason, while religious outreach is not.
Specifically, “animal cruelty is bad” is a well argued position, making it very different from a religious belief. See Animal Liberation by Peter Singer.