As of now, there are around 3,028 billionaires in the world. Of those, only four have publicly committed to donating their wealth according to Effective Altruist (EA) principles.
So I guess the issue isn’t so much that EA philanthropists are ineffective, it’s that there are so few of them.
The point I was trying to make was that the article isn’t really about EA not working, it’s more about billionaires claiming to donate effectively not actually doing so.
yeah, so we agree, EA, which is predicated on the wealthy actually giving away their money, is a flawed concept as that is something the wealthy cannot be compelled to do without force
EA isn’t a political framework, it’s a moral framework. It tells you what a morally good action looks like. Usually that doesn’t involve compelling you to perform that action by any other means than appealing to your desire to be moral.
It for sure is morally good to spend any extra money you have in a way that does the most good, billionaire or not. Not sure I see the flaw in that. Especially if you don’t do it instead of being an activist of systemic change, but in addition to that.
Huh, well shit. Thanks for pointing that out, guess I need my brain re-wrinkled. What is a moral framework then, if not a system for deciding if an action is morally good based on agreed-upon principles?
And what elements of EA makes it a political framework rather than a moral one? Reading Singer, it really seems all the arguments relate to the morality of saving lives through charity, not the distribution of power, resources and privilege within a society or communal framework.
I mean, according to the article
So I guess the issue isn’t so much that EA philanthropists are ineffective, it’s that there are so few of them.
It’s somewhat non-trivial to create a billionaire, let alone an EA variant; what other ideas do you have for improving EA?
The point I was trying to make was that the article isn’t really about EA not working, it’s more about billionaires claiming to donate effectively not actually doing so.
it can’t be that stupid, you must be donating wrong
Champion sneer
It’s almost as if the wealthy by and large don’t actually care about doing good or improving society!!!
Exactly
yeah, so we agree, EA, which is predicated on the wealthy actually giving away their money, is a flawed concept as that is something the wealthy cannot be compelled to do without force
EA isn’t a political framework, it’s a moral framework. It tells you what a morally good action looks like. Usually that doesn’t involve compelling you to perform that action by any other means than appealing to your desire to be moral.
It for sure is morally good to spend any extra money you have in a way that does the most good, billionaire or not. Not sure I see the flaw in that. Especially if you don’t do it instead of being an activist of systemic change, but in addition to that.
EA is absolutely a political framework. You’re just too lazy or smooth-brained to see it.
You… don’t know what a moral framework is.
“Duuuuuuuh it’s good to do thing that do most good duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh” <- that’s you
Huh, well shit. Thanks for pointing that out, guess I need my brain re-wrinkled. What is a moral framework then, if not a system for deciding if an action is morally good based on agreed-upon principles?
And what elements of EA makes it a political framework rather than a moral one? Reading Singer, it really seems all the arguments relate to the morality of saving lives through charity, not the distribution of power, resources and privilege within a society or communal framework.