Looking to advance businesses with charities in the vast majority shareholder position. Check out my TEDx talk for why I believe Profit for Good businesses could be a profound force for good in the world.
Brad Westđ¸
Karma: 2,064
Other than giving up and shutting down, they could have put offsetting front and center. I think it might be psychologically compelling to some who donât want to give up meat to be able to undo some of their contributions to the factory farming system. I actually became aware of their calculator from your quick take, as currently it is pretty hard to find.
I think I may have hidden the question that I was interested in my response.
I understand with your understanding of the motives and interests of the relevant actors, it is unlikely (maybe impossible?) for someone to do the matching process while understanding it fully.
But if that premise is satisfied, for the sake of argument, does that resolve the ethical question for you? Because my main issue was that Ben was suggesting that it would not.
While I understand the concern that people might only participate in FarmKindâs matching because they misunderstand it, I believe there are those who could find psychological or strategic value in the process even with full understanding. My main point was that, if participants are fully informed and still choose to engage, then any ethical issues are primarily about ensuring transparency. I disagree with the idea that thereâs something inherently wrong with the process itself, as long as thereâs no deception involved.
I suppose you are saying that this is a situation where the facts are such that there should be a presumption of the participant being misled. But, arguendo, if the participant fully understands the process and chooses to engage, is there some residual wrongfulness? Because I would think the remainder of the inquiry is a prudential question of whether it has the effect of raising more funds for the effective charities.
I think your example of the roulette wheel is illustrative⌠People know that they are going to lose money in expectation but it is rational for many of them to play because the expected fun they have from a night at the casino exceeds the expected loss. For example if you churn $500 and the average payback is 92.5%, the expected loss is $33.50 and you might have more fun than with other recreational activities that cost that much. Of course, some people may have gambling problems or may irrationally think that they have an advantage. These are the cases that we should be worried about: people who have issues of understanding or volitional capacity.
Similarly, people can understand whatâs going on with Farmkind or Giving Multiplier and want to participate, understanding that their choice is benefiting the charities that Farmkind or Giving Multiplier prefer.
If they enjoy and understand the process employed, I donât understand why one would think that they were harmed or exploited
If providing funds that will contribute to a match has the effect of increasing funds generated to effective charities and is transparent and forthright about the process involved, I donât really see the problem.
It does not seem to me as an uncooperative and adversarial process, but one that gets more people involved in effective giving in a collaborative and fun experience. As the OP suggested, there is a concern that the matcher (as opposed to the fund provider) may be deceived and not realize that the net effect of their participation is less funds to their preferred charity and more to the fund providerâs preferred charity. But if there is adequate understanding of the process, it seems to me that the question boils down to whether or not the availability of Giving Multiplier or Farmkind results in more counterfactual donations going to these charities.
Perhaps a bit of a ramble after reading your post and others, but I opted to click âcommentâ rather than delete it.
I pretty reflexively identify as and would not hesitate to associate myself with the EA community. A part of this is that I view my identity as an EA as relating to its core principles of a commitment to doing good and using reason to determine how best to do so. Although I believe that much of the cause prioritization/âdownstream beliefs common in the EA community are wise and well-taken, I donât consider these to be essential to being an EA. Were it the case that I thought that the community was mistaken on any or many of its determinations, I would still consider myself to be EA.
Of course, we cannot choose the inferences that others make when we say that we are EA, and thus one might risk people making assumptions or just getting unwelcome vibes.I wonder what could be done to spread a message that EA is about the fundamental commitment to doing good the best one can rather than commitment to specific cause areas or downstream beliefs. One issue is likely the relative unipolarity of EA funding. Even if members of the EA community disagree on downstream beliefs held by funders and cause area prioritizations, there will likely be less representation of this within EA because it is unlikely that this work will get funded and EA is likely to be viewed as âwhat EA doesâ rather than âwhat people who identify/âaffiliate as EA thinkâ. Furthermore, it is likely that people who identify as EAs will be tempted to adopt beliefs and priorities that are funded by EA.
I think there is just going to be a tension between the core principles of EA and the demonstrated actions of the EA community insofar as no person would be perfectly represented by its collective actions. And action is pretty heavily tethered to funding which the community has little ability to influence, so others may see an EA that reflects priorities and beliefs that an individual EA would not endorse. So, there is likely a gap between what you might mean when you say âI am EAâ and what somewhat else might hear, and I understand why it might make more sense to be more concerned about the latter.
One of the things that comes to mind are the variety of beliefs that might fall under religious identities. People might have significant political disagreements, for instance, but come together as Christians under the belief that Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins. Getting EA to be more associated with its essential principles than downstream beliefs and conclusions might be critical to its expansion and making people more comfortable identifying/âaffiliating with it, but this would probably be a difficult project.
Yeah, if there were markers like âneutralâ, âslightly agreeâ, âmoderately agreeâ, âstrongly agreeâ, etc. that might make it clearer.
After the decision by the user registers, a visual display that states something like âyouâve indicated that you strongly agree with the statement X. Redrag if this does not reflect your view or if something changes your mind and check out where the rest of the community falls on this question by clicking here.â
I note some of my confusion that might have been shared by others. I initially had thought that the option from users was between binary âagreeâ and âdisagreeâ and thought the method by which a user could choose was by dragging to one side or another. I see now that this would signify maximal agreement/âdisagreement, although maybe users like me might have done so in error. Perhaps something that could indicate this more clearly would be helpful to others.
I anticipate that others will say that you are not obligated to live your life to help others. I disagree, and think that we are obligated to do so. I agree that there is often very little difference between acting to do something that harms conscious beings and failing to do something that you are capable of doing that you know will prevent harm.
However, if you do not take care of yourself, you will (a) be less productive and (b) risk burnout and abandoning your commitment to help others. Even if you aspire to do the most good, without privileging your own interests, it is still prudent to make sure that your basic needs are met so that you are most likely to be be able and willing to do the most good throughout the course of your life.
I joined your mailing list. I will be happy to share what you are doing both personally and through my org!
A challenge with promoting animal rights is the common request for people to completely eliminate animal products from their diet, a step too significant for most. This demand can lead to inaction due to the cognitive dissonance experienced by those disturbed by factory farming but unwilling to go vegan. Thus, providing alternative ways for people to contribute can build more support and reduce harm.
Promoting meaningful labeling: When I go to the supermarket, I often see labeling that purports to signify that the animals used in the creation of the product were treated more humanely. I have no idea (a) whether or not the treatment difference they are claiming is actually true (there may be little to no enforcement) or (b) whether the treatment difference they are claiming actually is significant in terms of its welfare effect. This is an area that EAs could enable non-vegans who are sympathetic⌠enabling them to identify labeling that is meaningful in terms of animal welfare differences.
Promoting off-setting: The farmed animal welfare movement funding is around two to three hundred million dollars globally, if I understand correctly, orders of magnitude less than cause areas like global health and development. I think there are people who agree that it is terrible that we live in a world of mass torture for the creation of animal products, yet are unwilling to give up the products and thus continue contributing to the demand for it. Although it may not be the most rational to tie oneâs donation to oneâs harmful action, it is a framework that resonates with people due to some intuitions regarding special obligations stemming from harms that one causes. In my mind, we should leverage this intuition and make it easy to: (1) provide a survey to people that establishes their dietary patters; (2) provide a portfolio of effective animal welfare charities that effectively address farmed animal welfare (conservatively calculated to overestimate rather than underestimate),(3) calculate a sum corresponding with the harm caused on an annual basis, and (4) providing an easy means for them to pay it. I understand @Luke Eure is doing some work that may further this project.Making it simpler for people to engage in the farmed animal welfare movement is crucial. By offering accessible and practical ways to contribute, we can attract more individuals who share our goals, even if to a lesser degree.
Regarding #1, I would remember that orgs giving assistance optimize for avoiding Type 1 rather than Type 2 errors. This means, because of their limited resources, that they are much more interested in making sure their deployment of resources do not go to bad recipients rather than making sure that every potential good recipient is supported by their program (which would be impossible anyway). So while acceptance into a competitive program might be indicative of merit, rejection from many programs might not indicate lack of merit.
I would also listen to Sophia Baldersonâs (founder of Impactful Animal Advocacy, now Hive) interview on the How I Learned to Love Shrimp podcast.
Basically, keep considering whether the path you are pursuing is the way to go, but rejection is not dispostive of the question as there are lots of rejections of worthy applicants.
I think this is more an introduction to effective giving than effective altruism generally. I think it would make more sense to frame it that way, especially because effective giving can be a good lead-in to effective altruism.
I also find the inclusion of âAI Governanceâ while excluding âanimal welfare/âending factory farmingâ in the list of important causes as a bit strange, especially for general audience, with whom factory farming might be more legible.
Hi Dave,
I think businesses that donate a portion of profits should be commended. Itâs important to account for the effectiveness of the charities they support as well as the portion of profits donated.
The structure of donation as a portion of profits rather than a set quantity is also sensible because it enables businesses to meet their costs and for worthy causes to share in surpluses along with normal shareholders. However, in businesses with substantial normal shareholders (non-PFGs), shareholders may demand higher prices in light of the profit-sharing. Additionally, significant donations could impair a businessâs ability to compete by reinvesting profits.
The Profit for Good (PFG) business structure addresses these challenges effectively. By having charities as the primary shareholders, PFG businesses align their profit motives directly with philanthropic goals. This means that instead of traditional shareholders expecting returns, the profits are directed towards charitable causes, integrating giving into the core business model.
This alignment allows PFG businesses to maintain competitive pricing. Since charities are the shareholders, there is no pressure to maximize dividends for traditional investors. This enables the business to reinvest profits for growth, just like any other company, ensuring sustainability and a competitive edge in the market. Reinvestment increases the equity value of the business, which can enable charities to borrow against this value to access funds for urgent opportunities. The reinvestment benefits both the business and the charitable causes, as increased business value translates into greater potential for charitable funding.
Moreover, PFG businesses can leverage consumer preference for ethical consumption without compromising on competitiveness. Consumers are likely to favor products from businesses that transparently support charitable causes, potentially driving higher sales and further increasing the funds available for donation.
In essence, while any business contributing to charitable causes is a step in the right direction, the PFG model maximizes the impact by structurally aligning business success with philanthropic goals.
I love what you are doing to make it easier for people to do good. I think a lot of our communityâs efforts have focused on how to empower highly-aligned people to do more good. The focus you seem to have on concrete actions people can do to better the world seems like it could potentially have a much broader audience.
As I read through the EA handbook recently, many passages seemed rather paralyzing. And I agree that, especially for highly aligned and engaged people, thoughtful reflection and analysis is very appropriate to think about how we can use our lives to do the most good. On the other hand, your concrete recommendations with tangible, clearly-articulated benefits is probably more helpful to the vast majority of people looking to do good. I look forward to seeing the future of âIncreasing Happinessâ
They seem like an excellent example of a Profit for Good business succeeding in part due to their charitable commitment. Selling coffee, socks, and soap online seems very scalable and we are very excited to see the Good Storeâs progress.
We link to each of their product lines on our âFind a Profit for Goodâ page
https://ââprofit4good.org/ââfind-a-profit-for-good/ââ
I think that a broad moral circle follows from EA in the same way that generally directing resources to the developing world vs the developed world follows from EA. In fact, I think the adoption of a broad moral circle would be steps before the conclusion regarding preference for developing world assistance. However, I am not sure how wise it is to bundle certain moral commitments into the definition of EA when it could be defined simply as the deliberate use of reason to do the most good insofar as we are in the project of doing good, without specification of what âthe goodâ is. Otherwise, there could be broad arguments about what all moral commitments one must make in order to be an EA.
Of course, my definition would require me to bite the bullet that one could be an âeffective âaltruistââ and be purely selfish if they adopted a position such as ethical egoism. But I think confining the definition of EA to the deliberate use of reason to best do good, and leave open what that consists of, is the cleaner path. And the EA communityâs rejection of egoists would follow from the fact that such egoism either does not follow from their moral epistemology (or from whatever process they use to discern the good). This would be similar to the scientific communityâs rejection of a theory in which the sun revolves around the earth. They do not point to enumerations within the definition of science which reject that possibility within the definition, but rather they point to a higher order process which leads to its refutation. Moral epistemology would follow from the more basic requirement of reason and deliberateness (we canât do the most good unless we have some notion of what the good is).
I am a bit concerned with the âbroad moral circleâ being definitional to Effective Altruism (though it accords with my own moral views and with EAs generally). If I recall correctly, EA, zoomed out as far as possible, has not committed to specific moral views. There are disagreements among EAs, for instance, as to whether deontological constraints should limit actions, or whether we should act wholly to maximize welfare as utilitarians. I had thought that the essence of effective altruism is to âdo goodâ, at least to the extent that we are trying to do so, as effectively as we can.
Consequently, I would see the fundamental difference between what EA altruists and non-EA altruists are doing as one of deliberateness, from which instrumental rationality would proceed. The non-EA altruist looks to do good without deliberation as to how to do so as best he/âshe can, or with bounded deliberation on this point. The EA looks to do good with deliberation as to how to do so the best he/âshe can.
I would agree that setting a broad moral circle would be an early part of what one would do as an EA (before more broad cause-prioritization, for instance), but EA has traditionally been open-minded as to what philosophies are morally true or false and many have viewed this as an important part of the EA project. Consequently, I would put the âadoption of a broad moral circle moral valueâ at least one step beyond the definition of EA.
It looks like you are looking for advice on how to fundraise, particularly in a way that contributes to creating a norm or culture of giving.
Substantively, as a step one, trying to convince someone to donate all of their income above a certain threshold is likely to be met with a degree of defensiveness, internally, if not externally. If someone is not already considering such a step, it is probably very difficult to persuade the person to make that step. If you are a part of a community of relatively wealthy people, being a part of it and forming friendships with people might be a place to start. You can make it clear that giving effectively is part of your identity without explicitly trying to pitch them on effective giving, which may influence people. You could introduce people to Giving What We Can, and let them know the pledge that you have taken. However, being influential of other people in this way is likely very hard and would involve skills that are likely very difficult to learn.
On a meta-level, you might want to include in the title of your post the kind of help that you are looking for. âEA, I love youâ tells people who might want to help you virtually nothing about the kind of help you are looking for.
Good luck persuading/âinfluencing people to use the power they can to significantly better the world.
Love this notion⌠So many people are struggling to find a way to find meaning in a life where most of their job is unfulfilling. But by committing to effective giving, you can transform things that seem monotonous or pointless into the means to save lives, reduce suffering, etc.
I think that it is a perspective that I need to take to heart because one of the difficulties I have with my day job is that I would much rather be spending time with the org that I run. But by doing my day job, I support myselfâit would be hard to do my nonprofit work without my own food and lodging- and can fund, to some extent, the nonprofit that I run.