You can also go the way more plausible route and simply be a universalist!
Bentham's Bulldog
Karma: 2,568
Yes but I think their priority should be giving maximally effectively. So they should support giving where most effectively spreads the gospel. But probably that shouldn’t be the only place that they give—the Bible seems to suggest it’s very important to give to the poor, not just to evangelize to them.
Christians Should Be Effective Altruists
Yes oops, fixed that on my main blog but forgot to fix it here.
Yes, sorry, offset was misleading—I think climate change charities might be the highest EV, though very hard to know.
Vibes! 60 felt too high, 55 too low!
I agree there’s a very high degree of uncertainty. But I’d guess at maybe 58% odds that climate change will be bad in the long run. I’d imagine the aquatic impacts will largely rebound long term while the terrestrial ones will be long lasting. I agree there’s high uncertianty, but sometimes it’s worth acting on +ev actions even given loads of uncertainty.
Where To Offset Carbon Without Increasing Wild Animal Suffering?
How To Help Neglected Animals
You don’t have to think that only suffering and pleasure matter to think they’re among the things that matter. But it’s quite intuitively obvious that pain is bad in virtue of how it feels.
That would be right. They’re not conscious, so they’re not important at all.
Totally agree.
Insects Are Not Moderately Important
Children Are Dying Whom You Can Save
How to make sense of wrongness if you’re a consequentialist
The rationale for today was it was the last day for the consultation.
Well, all Christians will need to explain why evangelism isn’t the only thing of any importance. In my view universalists have the best answer, but whatever one’s answer is, it can explain why to give to effective anti-poverty charities.