Peter Singer a well known philosopher argues you're a murderer if you don't donate significant amounts to charity. Is he right? Why or why not? Here's an example of a formal argument for people being super obligated to donate to charity "The Drowning Child Argument Is Simply CorrectFailure to donate to effective charities is like walking past drowning children and doing nothing.Imagine you were walking past a drowning child. The child kicks, screams, and cries as they drown and are about to be resigned to a watery grave when you walk by. You can save them if you jump into the pool and pull them out. But doing so would come at a cost. You’re currently wearing a very expensive suit—about 5,000 dollars—or perhaps your suit is cheap but has a 5,000 dollar bill in your pocket that would be ruined if you save the child (it’s a very deep pocket—you can’t pull it out in time). Clearly, in such a case, even though it would cost significant money, you’d be obligated to jump into the pond to save the child.
>>39653935Long before I was born, Peter Singer argued that this case shows that we have an obligation to donate to effective charities. The best charities—which you can, at any time, donate to—save lives for a few thousand dollars each. Just as you’re obligated to sacrifice a few thousand dollars to pull the child out of the pond and save them, you’re obligated to sacrifice a few thousand dollars to save a far-away child who would otherwise die of malaria.In Singer’s original formulation, he used the drowning child case to support the following principle: if you can prevent something very bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral value, you should do so. For example, if you can prevent a woman from being raped or a person from being murdered at the cost of 700 dollars, you should do so, because averting rape and murder is more valuable than 700 dollars. From this, he deduces that you should give your discretionary spending to effective charities. You shouldn’t spend 5,000 dollars going to Hawaii when you could instead save a person’s life.
But I think we can make a much more direct argument: failure to give to effective charities is morally equivalent to walking past drowning children. Therefore, you have an obligation to give to effective charities, just as you would have an obligation to pull drowning children out of ponds (it seems this is how everyone has, in the intervening years, interpreted Singer’s argument, even though it’s not what was originally intended).In both the case where you pull the child out of a pond and the case where you donate to effective charities, you can avert a death at the cost of just a few thousand dollars. This seems to be the salient feature of the situation—the reason to wade in and save the child seems to be that you can save a life at a small cost. The alternative is to come up with some gerrymandered explanation of why you should save the child from the pond but not from malaria, but that’s less plausible than the simple account that you should prevent terrible things from happening if you can do so at comparatively minor cost.
Still, lots of people argue that there are important differences between pulling kids from ponds and donating to, say, the Against Malaria Foundation. Let’s address them.The most common claim is that there’s a difference in terms of proximity. You are only obligated to save the child because they’re near you—if they were far away, you wouldn’t be obligated to save them. This account suffers from two problems: it’s false in a first way, and it’s false in a second way.First of all, the idea that you’re only obligated to save people who are near you is crazy. Imagine that you could wade into the pond to press a button that would save a child from drowning who was far away. Clearly, you should still do that. But in that case, there’s as much lack of proximity as there is when you donate to effective charities.
Second of all, proximity—at least in the sense of someone being physically close to you in space—is obviously not morally important. Suppose that a child is drowning in a plane and it costs money to press a button that would save them from drowning. Would your reason to save them decrease as they recede into the distance—as they get farther away? Is your obligation to save aliens within one galaxy of you much stronger than your reason to save aliens within two galaxies of you? No, that’s crazy! It doesn’t get less important to save people simply because they’ve taken planes far away.When claiming that proximity refutes the drowning child argument, lots of people like to say is that you have a great obligation to your friends and family. I don’t know what prompts them to say this in response to the drowning child argument, as it has nothing to do with the argument! Even if you have special obligations to your friends and family, your reasons to save drowning children that you don’t know are still equal to your reasons to save kids you don’t know who might get malaria. The drowning child is not your child—they’re a child that you don’t know personally.People often claim that you have a greater obligation to those in your own country than to foreigners. I’m doubtful of this, but let’s grant it. Now imagine that you’re on the Mexican border and see a drowning child. They’re not a member of your country. Nevertheless, you should wade in the pond and save them, even at the cost of an expensive suit. Failing to give to effective charities, I claim, is like ignoring the drowning Mexican child—even though they’re not part of your country, you still have an obligation to save them.
Additionally, it’s often claimed that there’s an important difference in that in the drowning child scenario, you’re the only person who can save them, while when giving to charity, others can save them too. I’ve always found this idea super weird: your reason to save people doesn’t evaporate just because other people aren’t following their duty to save people. We can see this by imagining in the drowning children that there are a bunch of nearby assholes ignoring the child as he drowns. Does that eliminate your reason to save the child? No, obviously not. But this case is, in terms of other people not acting to save the child, analogous to real-world charitable donations.The final consideration—and this one is the only that bears any weight—is that there are many drowning children. Imagine that there wasn’t just one drowning child, but hundreds of thousands—you could never save them all. It’s plausible that you wouldn’t be obligated to spend your entire life saving children, never enjoying things.The main thing to note about this is that even if it’s right, maybe it means we’re not all required to spend all of our time saving children, but it still means we’re required to do a lot. A person who never saved even a single drowning child, who ignored the cries of every child who drowned, would be monstrous. So while perhaps you don’t have to give all your money to effective charities, accepting this reasoning would still mean you have an obligation to make charitable giving a main part of your life—say by giving a significant share of your income to effective charities.
I’m also dubious that this justifies spending money on luxuries. In a world where kids were constantly drowning, it doesn’t seem justified to, say, spend thousands of dollars on vacation when you could instead save a child. A child’s life is just so much more important than a trip to Europe. Your reason to save a child doesn’t depend on how many previous children you’ve saved—or so it seems. If I can’t remember whether I lost 10,000 dollars yesterday saving drowning children or gambling, it doesn’t seem I need to figure out which of these I did to decide whether I should save a drowning child.But if we accept this principle, that whether you previously spent your money on saving children or doing other stuff doesn’t affect whether you should currently spend your money on saving children, then your reason to save children is the same as it would be if you hadn’t saved any children. But clearly, if you were choosing between saving a child from a pond and going on vacation, and you hadn’t saved any children, you’d be obligated to save the child. It follows then that you have an obligation to save a child if the alternative is going on vacation.This argument has, since I’ve heard it, struck me as obviously, irrefutably correct. We certainly have an obligation to make saving children—when we can save hundreds at comparatively minor cost—a significant life project. If a person can save a life a year, without majorly jeopardizing their welfare, just by tithing to effective charities, failing to do so seems clearly immoral.If you’re convinced by this, I’d encourage you to take a Giving What We Can pledge or give to GiveWell charities. Most people are, inadvertently, doing things as bad as walking past drowning children. We have significant reason to stop doing this.
>obligatedI didn't make that lil nigga, where's his parentsshoulda survived the famine
>>39653935I don't trust charities. I have no guarantee that the money I give to a middle man will actually reach the people I intent. For all I know they could be pocketing all the cash for themselves.
>Peter Singer's dog-fucking thought-experiment
>>39653935that’s fucking stupid, this guy sounds like one of those evil soulless “effective altruist” fucks
>>39654069If you're parents died when you were young and you had no relatives you'd want strangers to save you>>39654097There's an abundance of evidence that effective altruist charities use your money well . If you don't trust them then buy a plane ticket and distribute some mosquito nets yourself instead https://www.givewell.org/charities/malaria-consortiumhttps://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/best-charities/malaria-consortium/>>39654104ad hominem >>39654114Nothing soulless about it. If human beings have souls and are made in the image of God then they're infinitely valuable and we should save them
>>39653935What if you can't swim?
>>39653935I somewhat agree with this, but the problem is most charities are scams just like the government that miss uses our tax fund they misuse their charitable funds. It’s all really depressing and sad.
>>39653935My life, my rules and my consequences.
>>39653935Why is the child in a body of water if they can't swim? Why is there no one else around?In my eyes this situation was caused by someone else's negligence, maybe even the child's own poor decisions>But who cares you can save themNo, I don't want the minor inconvenience. But in return I wish for no one to ever help me ever either. That way its all equal.
>inb4 overpopulation there's effective altruist charities that focus on giving out contraceptives and educating and reminding women how to use them>The Family Empowerment Media charity works by giving radio shows on contraception in poor regions. This avoids a new unwanted pregnancy for about $30, and saves the mother’s life for around $3,000-$5,000.https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/charities/family-empowerment-media>>39654160I'd encourage you to look into the research on charities like give directly or malaria consortium https://www.givewell.org/charities/malaria-consortiumhttps://www.givedirectly.org/There's also charities in which the person/Village you're donating to will send you a handwritten letter
>>39654135holy shit I was right it is those EA psychopathsthis shit is completely fucking deranged, it’s the absolute worst, worse than actual goddamn nazis
>>39654195I’d encourage you to stop being an evil piece of shit and quit shilling this demented vile trash
>>39653935He's right but fails to properly account for the phenomenon of bad faith actors, so you're not actually obligated to donate to charity unless you can be absolutely certain the charity is both valid and efficient (which in most cases is impossible)Helping people in other ways is obligatory but also much easier to demonstrate real benefits from, and that's the meaningful obligation - help everyone around you whenever you can as best you can manage it
>>39654185>But who cares you can save them>No, I don't want the minor inconvenience. But in return I wish for no one to ever help me ever either. That way its all equal.Libertarian ayn rand thinking like this is an absolute joke.
>>39654195>There's also charities in which the person/Village you're donating to will send you a handwritten letterscamsthose are called scams
>>39654222I have no idea what you're trying to say
>>39654273>>39654222The exchange you're referencing seems to touch on themes of individualism, self-reliance, and the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism, particularly as articulated by Ayn Rand. The first person's statement suggests a perspective that values personal autonomy and a desire for equality in the social contract—if they don't want help, then they believe others shouldn't expect help in return.The second person's response critiques this viewpoint by labeling it as "Libertarian Ayn Rand thinking," implying that such an attitude is overly simplistic or misguided. Ayn Rand’s philosophy, known as Objectivism, emphasizes rational self-interest and individual rights, often rejecting altruism as a moral obligation.The crux of the discussion seems to center on the balance between individual autonomy and social responsibility. Those who align with more collectivist ideologies might argue that society has a responsibility to help its members, while libertarians may argue for minimal intervention and personal responsibility.This exchange could lead to a broader discussion about the implications of self-reliance versus communal support, and how these values shape our interactions and societal structures.
>>39653935https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkADj0TPrJA
is ignoring charity an infinite free loosh glitch????
Peter "kill disabled toddlers " Singer>https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned-about-disability-and-infanticide-from-peter-singer
EAs and their charities are a waste of time for the simple fact that it's impossible to be *effective* through the mode of nonprofits.communism is a pipe dream.the only answer is a God figure like dictatorship.AI should rule us and dictate every aspect of life on the planet, down to the last earth worm.so many good people are insanely naive about reality, you must understand that in order to enforce your moral standard you need to wield power and that requires the acceptance of acts that are intolerable by most altruists.
>>39654341I guess it is if you do so with malice afterthought
>>39654416Someone could agree with most of that and still donate a significant amount of their income to charity. If all the effective altruists stopped donating to charity tomorrow and all the effective altruist charities disappeared there would be more suffering and death of humans and animals. Without someone pushing for shrimp welfare for example there'd be far more shrimp suffering since they wouldn't be stunned
>>39654344Not all effective altruists are utilitarians.P1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, or medical care are very bad.P2. We can prevent such suffering and death by donating to effective charities (in place of consumer purchases).P3. Many of our consumer purchases are morally insignificant: we could give them up without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant.P4. The rescue principle: If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.Therefore,C. We ought, morally, to donate to effective charities rather than making morally insignificant consumer purchases.
>>39654478OK, but the drowning child anaology specifically, was coined by Singer.I myself have been lurking the reduce-suffering blog of Tom, lesswrong, hedonistic imperative blogsphere -very related to E.U. and ,to a degree, transhumanist speculative cosmology-
>>39653935Silence is violence-tier bullshit.
>>39654135>If you're parents died when you were young and you had no relatives you'd want strangers to save youOrphans statically majority grownup to be a burden on society. Ergo, society would be better off if we killed all orphans. This is my unironic position.
>>39655359Whole of humanity is flawed and should be re-engineered. ASI is the holy grail, that's all that matters now.
>>39655345NIGGER. YOU. are the problem.lol.
I don't have money to donate to, nor benefit from charity in any way so checkmate retarded armchair guy
>>39655496You can always donate your organs. you waste of oxygen.
>>39655462>Whole of humanity is flawed and should be re-engineeredYes.
>>39653935>you'd be obligednah nigga I ain't saving some nigga who can't swim hell I can't even swim myself
Peter Singer is an enormous piece of shit. Some of his greatest hits:>The life of a healthy pig is more important than a human child with down syndrome. >An aardvark should have the same privileges and rights as a newborn baby.>You can murder a 3 week old baby and it's about as morally significant as eating an orange.
>>39655527He is not wrong. you are inferior. lol.
I hate children
>>39655551Not an argument.
>>39653935The simple reason this argument fails is because it creates two, infinitely large black holes that constantly pull in opposite directions. The first is that the world has infinite needs. Every morsel of food you eat, every breath of air you take, every minute you spend sleeping on a bed, is desperately needed by another person somewhere else in the world. Also, you're saving to donate to all those future people who haven't been born yet, right? You end up in an infinite spiral where every waking moment of your existence is in debt to every human who will ever live.The second black hole: If it's moral and required for me to give charity, then it must be immoral for me to accept charity. To do th right thing, I must always refuse help when it is offered, or immediately give it to another person.To use the example of the drowning child, imagine that the drowning child looks next to him and sees an infinitely long line of other drowning children. Isn't the right thing in that circumstance for the kid to say, "No sir, please, save another." and send you down an infinitely long line of kids saying no? And imagine how fucked up it would be if one kid said yes and then a infinite number of children drowned except just that one who was selfish enough to think he deserved to be saved.
>>39653935>jewopinion discarded
>>39655698That's why mass genocide is superior, but the EA cucks will never budge. the truth is that we are a flawed paradoxical creature. only pure intelligence must be allowed to exist.
>>39653935>appeal to emotion targeting the highly empathetic white race by a jew in order to flood their countries with subhumanscolor me shocked
>>39655527I'm guessing that he's using the "thoughts are what give life value" framework. The funny thing with this logic is that it also makes it perfectly morally acceptable to murder someone so long as they're sleeping and and aren't having any particularly vivid dreams at the time.
>>39653935If the weak overpopulate the suffering is worse.Meritocracy is achieved by selfishness and is the source of all things good, healthy, and capable, in other words the fruit of life.I will not aid someone unless they show potential.A swarming mass of welfare dependant humans who regret having been born is not something to be celebrated as a moral triumph; it is cuckery.Coming from someone who has risked their skin many times over for humanity's sake.Work smarter rather than becoming weak.
>>39655832not appeal to emotion. you don't have to be emotional to recognize harm and reduce it.
>>39655928Meritocracy leads to strife through lack of loyalty. You are a midwit. Party loyalists are more important.
>>39655960My IQ is off the charts, tested by a psychologist. My academic works are the same when put into a words to IQ tester.You assume those of merit have no cause or passion, and are mere creatures of impulse.Additionally, you use the excuse of other's weakness, in this case, stupidity, as justification for malice. Ironic.
>>39653935>Peter Singer a well known philosopher argues you're a murderer Ok.
>>39653935The major problem with his thought experiment is that he believes that not lending a hand is murder. This is a testament to how literate he is. Murder is the act of killing somebody intentionally. If you pushed somebody into the water and they drowned, that would be murder, but choosing to stand idly by is not murder, as you didn’t cause their death in any way; they caused their own death by jumping in the water.
>>39656059https://youtu.be/Su5f0Yv0ZGg?si=CMVuq5QrbuFzvnfD
>>39653935It's not even fucking comparable though. On the drowning kid scenario, I can either jump in the pool and save the kid( and nothing will happen to the suit because suits aren't made of paper), or I can just take out my 5000 dollar bill and put it in the ground and save the kid.>(it’s a very deep pocket—you can’t pull it out in time) If you have to add retarded stuff like this then the scenario is intrinsically retarded. But even if somehow the suit or money gets damaged its still a retarded comparison there isn't a choice here, no one is going to not save the kid because of money. People will literally climb buildings and enter burning buildings to save fucking DOGS, you really think when someone sees a drowning kid the person will think>Oh no my gucci suit it's gonna get ruined( for no reason), oh well who cares about this child lelNow let's compare to a charity. You have no control or idea of what will happen to your money once it enters the charity. It could be used to save a life, or it could be used to save thousands of lives, or it could be used to fatten the pockets of corrupt Ethiopian politicians or the own charity.
>>39656059Are you the 72archetypes nigger that used to shitzo post on r/intp?
>>39653935following this logic, donating to charity would be like:Giving money to a institution so they can take part of the money for their own pockets, use a piece of the money to burocraticly send a guy to saved the drowning childrenm but it doesnt even matter cause geopolitcs will keep throwing those children in the water
>>39653935>failure to give to effective charities is morally equivalent to walking past drowning childrenMy main issue with this is not a question of effectiveness of charities, but that the phrase "give to effective charities" can be replaced by whatever the author decides is the important thing to convince you to do.>failure to dismantle capitalism is morally equivalent to walking past drowning childrenAnd then go on to explain how the real problem that is "drowning the children" is the ability for others to take and exploit resources for their personal gain, and the greed that develops.Debate-wise, it's a diversion tactic. It shifts the moral argument away from the actual event - giving money, or advancing communism, or just buying me a ps2 - onto "save a drowning child".So the only counterargument is to debate whether or not the connection is warranted, and not the actual morality of the initial action.
>>39653935Is that the guy on 4th and walnut?
>>39653935>PLEEEEEASE GIVE US YOUR MONEY! IT’S FOR A GOOD CAUSE WE SWEAR>HERE ARE STUDIES SHOWING WE DEFINITELY USE YOUR MONEY FOR GOOD CAUSES AND THAT PROGRESS IS DEFINITELY BEING MADE>BY THE WAY IF YOU AREN’T GIVING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF YOUR LIFE SAVINGS AWAY YOU’RE FUCKING EVILWhat a load of infantile bullshit. What next? If I don’t become a vigilante and beat the shit out of purse snatchers at the risk of my own life that makes me responsible for kids being murdered?No, seriously. By this logic am I not evil for not training myself to be a medical scientist so I could cure these diseases myself? Or become as rich as possible so I could fund the work of all these organisations myself? So am I evil if I don’t literally enslave my very existence to bettering the lives of others? What about you? Why haven’t you cured all the world’s ills? Are you evil? What about him? Or her? At what point does it end? Where is the finish line for this shitty logic?I propose a new thought experiment. The “OP sucks cocks” thought experiment. It’s very simple. OP has to suck cocks to make everyone happy. If he doesn’t suck cocks he’s actually evil because he is actively depriving others of the joy of having their cocks sucked by him. So OP is morally obligated to suck everyone’s cocks for the rest of his life.
>>39654287Thanks ChatGPT.
>>39656194No. Personality archtypes are just overcomplicated circular logic often mixed with grifting.I only schizo post when when shitpost trolling for the lulz.
>>39656476Check that 72archetypes schizo blog, I went into that rabbithole a few days ago. he claims to have made a system that's 10,000x more accurate than the MBTI
>>39653935If I am a murderer for not donating to charity, executives at the charity are double triple plus murderers for drawing 300k+ salaries from funds that were meant for dying children. If I were to donate to charity I would become an accomplice to double triple plus murder.No thank you.
>>39653935Counter-argument: the world is a lie.
>>39653935By attempting to save an unrelated drowning child you inherently put yourself and the people who depend on you at risk since if this body of water could drown a child, it could realistically drown a fully grown adult in the same or different circumstances. While attempting to save a drowning child is noble, NOT saving him does not necessarily make our subject a murderer. If our subject is a fully grown adult male with a wife and child of his own for whom he is also the primary provider to, and he can't swim, it is far wiser for him NOT to try to save the drowning child directly since an attempt may result in the death of both him AND the drowning child, and leave his family without a primary provider. (IE everyone loses). Also, not paranormal. Get fucked.
Of course in a perfect world we do what we can to help each other, but this is far from a perfect world so these thought experiments have no real-world basis. This is like post World War I, European nations throwing away their weapons because of gaudy ideals, allowing Hitler to secretly amass an army and gain a huge advantage. Peace is a cool idea but this is the real world, people will take advantage.Simply, Singer is a tosser who wants to guilt you into giving money away to scalpers and traffickers.
There’s an anime Monster that explores a related idea. Gem of 80s animation.Charity begins at home. Sure it sucks being homeless. But what if you were homeless, but knew that three generations back, your family was wealthy, and decided to donate all of the family wealth to charity, rather than keep the money in the family? It gets worse - at the time when they donated their money to charity, there was a fully functional social safety net, so they couldn’t have possibly imagined that their future descendants might end up homeless. It gets worse - What if you looked up the charities they donated to; and the descendants of the CEOs of the charities they donated to are now millionaires. It gets worse - Your family earned their wealth through the creation of useful inventions, and the patents of these inventions are now held by mega corporations that spend some of their money lobbying against social policies that would help you out of homelessness.No taxation without representation can be applied to charity as well, as charitable donations can be considered to be a form of ethical taxation. Isn’t 40% of your income going to stuff you can’t control, decided by people you don’t like and don’t really represent your belief system enough?When you start getting into the territory of $100 million plus net worth, by all means donate to charity, but over half of all Americans don’t have $1,000 handy. Ask me to round up when eating at fast food, or send me surveys to fill out and send $10 to a charity of my choosing, sounds good. Otherwise, I’d rather spend my money on creative output to support content creators, rather than on something the government is supposed to be doing.Ran up against character limit, too lazy to make two posts, but essentially, I say that if you combine Peter Singer’s stance with certain aspects of theoretical physics, you eventually reach the concept of Christian Universalism. Christ Saves.
>>39655943>recognize harm and reduce it.then the point wouldve been about decimating the charities and let them drown not the complete opposite of it
>>39656508What an absolute clusterfuck of a site.
>>39655527Thanks for that. Never heard of the guy.Child with Down syndrome has ability to conceptualize “self” with words. Pig does not.Nonsequitur: … The discussion here is higher caliber than anything you would find on Reddit these days. This thread reveals that there still are multiple humans willing to engage in semi-polite discussion in traditional forum format on the English-language internet, with no need to self-identify. Your post would have been upvoted on Reddit, but nothing this lucid would happen on Reddit these days.
>>39657137Read u/JusticeSlut (blog owner) comments.INFs are evil because we're master manipulators or something
My wife worked in a charity shop, it was essentially a for-profit money laundering gig for the boomer who owned itProbably 5% of the money they made went to any cause and that cause was usually the sustaining of invading foreigners (africans) into the country, thus being a harmful cause at the end of the dayIf you have the money you should help people directly, handing money over to third parties will never ever end well
>>39657253It would seem he never got out of the anger stage of some ex leaving him and has gone schizophrenic by using anxiety to justify his own anger.Those primarily feel are excellent stabilizers for those who are strained by intelligence.Without them mental health can suffer.Indeed it will suffer because the base of feeling is required for thinking.Without emotion as a means for focus, the mind becomes a fuzzy, scattered overcomplicated mess.Given your focus on this arrogant schizo of the many arrogant schizos out there, I suspect you have a need to have mental poison cleared from you.As such, I assure you, emotions are absolutely important and are far more complex and metaphysical than is known. They are not, mere chemicals, they are specific neuroelectric receivers and emitters for the metaphysical.If you want proof, be worthy of a demon's attention. Seek to self improve. Their emotional connection no matter how intense, will leave little chemical and hormonal residue.
Can we just murder all sociopaths? it's literally the only reason why we can't have nice things.communism is not a fiction, it's doable. just not when parasites exist.
>>39657349You are astute to see the true disease, which is mental illness combined with hostile aggression.Regardless life is messy and people's judgement is often spotty.Personally I would support a guild system for the economic base, and a martial state above, in which only those who have proven themselves mentally and physically capable and sane may me allowed to direct the resources of society. This would require the grounding of a strong cultural pride such that deviants are eliminated from their ranks.Art, culture, and pride would be the lifeblood of motivation.Greed strikes those who lack within, a hunger which they cannot feed, only appease for a moment.
>>39657348Yes, I am in a dark spot in my life, good guess.
>>39657377The channels sith master and order of rage on youtube, while nerdy, may have philosophey to aid you.If you are in need of funds, I have prompts for AI which you could use to create admittedly nsfw images for money.Only ask if you must, but don't risk your bacon either.
>>39657393sith mastery*
>>39653935I agree with this so I'm gonna start donating to charity now
It sounds more like we should all be obligated to help start a global revolution which would end the system which causes the need for these charities, instead of donating to them and continuing the cycle of reliance.
>>39657503The system is darwinian or biological not just a social construct.
>>39657538Sneed.
>>39657599Bit boring that they use the same tricks isn't it?Let humanity never fail to be flexible.
>>39653935Murder implies intent. So at worst it's something more akin to neglect. But again right and wrong is just something we made up based on our feeling sof empathy and the social contract. One will be much happier if they are ignorant to the suffering of the wider world and focus on their own training and enjoyment. Only worrying about that which they can see and not the problems of far off realms they shall never touch
The problem is that the analogy does not hold up because it fails to account for an information problem. "Information Problems" are cases in economics where the market does not have enough information to correctly value the potential choices.In the "drowning child" story, all of the information about the relative risks, rewards, and ongoing future costs is visible, because "a drowning child" can be saved by a time-limited direct intervention that has a clear outcome.Most charitable activity does not work the same way, and cannot work the same way. The most famous example is "The March of Dimes" but we all intuitively understand that every charity will develop into a bit of a racket over time. The people who work there expect to get paid (either with cash, psychological, or social status rewards.) In many cases, the charities have an incentive to effectively dramatize and potentially mis-describe the circumstances that lead to the need for charity in the first place.For example, I give to a charity that helps "homeless people." Being a charity, they are formally agnostic as to WHY the people are homeless-they help everyone. But I wish they would focus on the deserving poor-people who, through no fault of their own (such as lay-offs, or suddenly death of a family provider), become homeless, and less for the alcoholics, drug addicts, and petty criminals. But I don't have enough pull to change how they provide services, and I don't have the time or on-the-ground knowledge that would let me more effectively assist the deserving poor.Further, unlike in the drowning child example, there's no competition between different charitable goals. Choosing takes time, energy, and reduces the available resources the giver has to address local issues that directly impact him.Individual charity to solve immediate local problems like a child drowning does not generalize to charity generally because the costs are impossible to calculate for the potential donor.
wired.com/story/deaths-of-effective-altruism
>>39653935Except we already saved the drowning child. They jumped back in. We build safe guards for them gave them flotation devices and taught them how to swim. They responded buy burning the flotation devices and safety guard tied a rock to themselves and jumped back is. So how many times are we expected to risk our own life jumping back in after them?
