There’s good points on both sides of the EA debate. And I think people of good faith can disagree on them. But there is also something of a solution, if you’re willing to split the difference. EA is driven by deliberation and attempts to override the quick and dirty rules our brains evolved to use to determine whose suffering is worthy of compassion. It’s emotions like compassion that usually drive giving, and so if they’re not part of the picture (as they often aren’t welling up in EA deliberations), it takes some of the warm glow out of giving. Recognizing this, Giving Multiplier (developed by psychologists Joshua Greene and Lucius Caviola) is a platform that allows you to do both. I’d urge interested WOC readers to check it out at givingmultiplier.org.
Yeah, I find absolutist arguments about EA pretty unimpressive, on both sides. "Never give money that you haven't optimized" is the kind of rule that would completely short-circuit the ability of philanthropy to step outside of the measured-and-optimized and do things that are hard to measure but valuable to humanity or the world. On the other hand, identifying cost-effective ways of materially helping those who need it most strikes me as a transparently worthwhile exercise, not because it's the only way that anyone should give money but because I find it obvious that this is one good way of giving money.
I appreciate that the NYT article does at least give one example of someone deeply involved with the EA movement who nevertheless doesn't optimize absolutely everything. It's not at all uncommon, as the existence of the "Giving Multiplier" website also attests. I feel like the article has an overall tone that suggests that this is unusual when it's really not.
With that said, I'm wary of characterising non-EA giving as primarily driven by "quick-and-dirty" emotion. It can be, of course, but I think it's unwise to set up a reflexive calculation/emotion divide in our thinking, such that everything that is not formulated into numbers is considered mere primitive impulse. In truth, the non-computational deserves more care and attention than that.
" ‘[Peter Singer’s] asking the wrong question,’ [Schiller] recalled thinking at the time. She wanted to know: How could anyone put a numerical value on a holy space?’"
I think Schiller's asking the wrong question. $750 million would save (let's say) 10,000 poor children's lives. So far, no value statements, just plain fact. At that point, anyone, Catholic or utilitarian, who has an opinion, one way or the other, about how to spend that money, has put a numerical value on a holy space.
One more silly, shallow criticism of Singer. They are legion.
It’s just a silly question from the beginning. There’s tons of wealth that could be distributed to help 10,000 people. But the focus on the Cathedral is due to one simple thing: Singer doesn’t like it.
A quick google search tells me that Singer has apparently, at the very least, told people not to donate to Princeton or Yale (Singer has been associated with both):
“Princeton has an endowment, at the time of writing, of US$21 billion and Yale of US$23.9 billion … the money you donate to one of them could probably do more good elsewhere.”
So, no, Singer does not merely criticise donations to places that he does not personally like, if that’s the accusation you are making. He is considerably more philosophically consistent than that.
Thanks. I guess the big difference is that Notre Dame is open to all human beings, whereas Princeton is open mostly only to the American elite. So it is more ethically pressing -- much more, I'd wager -- to redistribute the Princeton endowment than the money that goes into fixing one of humanity's most beautiful buildings.
But it isn't being distributed, and it's not going to be distributed, especially if people don't raise questions like Singer's. Arguably the purpose of his question is to make Notre Dame supporters say: "But why Notre Dame? There's plenty of money to feed starving children." Singer: "Oh yes? Then why are they still starving?" Notre Dame supporters: "Um ... well ... "
It may be worth noting that Andreesen’s anti-utilitarian arguments are apparently AI-generated — I believe “Professor Claude” is a reference to Anthropic’s AI assistant of that name.
I disagree with EA, but with this caveat: People need to feel good to continue to give, and EA makes giving fun for a lot of rich people who want to give globally, but it is not morally superior to other types of giving. The best rational for giving is arguably the rational that inspires you to give (arguably), but
I have a local community volunteer nonprofit, which gives you a background to my perspective, but I believe that the best giving is local. Where else can you see the results directly, and have the most oversight? Yes, we are hard wired to fix the problems in front of us--but I would argue that is a good thing.
There’s good points on both sides of the EA debate. And I think people of good faith can disagree on them. But there is also something of a solution, if you’re willing to split the difference. EA is driven by deliberation and attempts to override the quick and dirty rules our brains evolved to use to determine whose suffering is worthy of compassion. It’s emotions like compassion that usually drive giving, and so if they’re not part of the picture (as they often aren’t welling up in EA deliberations), it takes some of the warm glow out of giving. Recognizing this, Giving Multiplier (developed by psychologists Joshua Greene and Lucius Caviola) is a platform that allows you to do both. I’d urge interested WOC readers to check it out at givingmultiplier.org.
Yeah, I find absolutist arguments about EA pretty unimpressive, on both sides. "Never give money that you haven't optimized" is the kind of rule that would completely short-circuit the ability of philanthropy to step outside of the measured-and-optimized and do things that are hard to measure but valuable to humanity or the world. On the other hand, identifying cost-effective ways of materially helping those who need it most strikes me as a transparently worthwhile exercise, not because it's the only way that anyone should give money but because I find it obvious that this is one good way of giving money.
I appreciate that the NYT article does at least give one example of someone deeply involved with the EA movement who nevertheless doesn't optimize absolutely everything. It's not at all uncommon, as the existence of the "Giving Multiplier" website also attests. I feel like the article has an overall tone that suggests that this is unusual when it's really not.
With that said, I'm wary of characterising non-EA giving as primarily driven by "quick-and-dirty" emotion. It can be, of course, but I think it's unwise to set up a reflexive calculation/emotion divide in our thinking, such that everything that is not formulated into numbers is considered mere primitive impulse. In truth, the non-computational deserves more care and attention than that.
" ‘[Peter Singer’s] asking the wrong question,’ [Schiller] recalled thinking at the time. She wanted to know: How could anyone put a numerical value on a holy space?’"
I think Schiller's asking the wrong question. $750 million would save (let's say) 10,000 poor children's lives. So far, no value statements, just plain fact. At that point, anyone, Catholic or utilitarian, who has an opinion, one way or the other, about how to spend that money, has put a numerical value on a holy space.
One more silly, shallow criticism of Singer. They are legion.
It’s just a silly question from the beginning. There’s tons of wealth that could be distributed to help 10,000 people. But the focus on the Cathedral is due to one simple thing: Singer doesn’t like it.
PS - I happen to know that when Singer spent a sabbatical year at the Sorbonne, he went to Mass at Notre Dame every morning. So there.
Has Singer ever said what his employer Princeton should do with its endowment?
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/princetons-endowment-2024-39-return-lags-behind-peers
A quick google search tells me that Singer has apparently, at the very least, told people not to donate to Princeton or Yale (Singer has been associated with both):
“Princeton has an endowment, at the time of writing, of US$21 billion and Yale of US$23.9 billion … the money you donate to one of them could probably do more good elsewhere.”
Quoted here: https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/big-blind-spots-peter-singers-philanthro-capitalism
So, no, Singer does not merely criticise donations to places that he does not personally like, if that’s the accusation you are making. He is considerably more philosophically consistent than that.
Thanks. I guess the big difference is that Notre Dame is open to all human beings, whereas Princeton is open mostly only to the American elite. So it is more ethically pressing -- much more, I'd wager -- to redistribute the Princeton endowment than the money that goes into fixing one of humanity's most beautiful buildings.
Probably.
But it isn't being distributed, and it's not going to be distributed, especially if people don't raise questions like Singer's. Arguably the purpose of his question is to make Notre Dame supporters say: "But why Notre Dame? There's plenty of money to feed starving children." Singer: "Oh yes? Then why are they still starving?" Notre Dame supporters: "Um ... well ... "
It may be worth noting that Andreesen’s anti-utilitarian arguments are apparently AI-generated — I believe “Professor Claude” is a reference to Anthropic’s AI assistant of that name.
I think you're right. We couldn't tell quite what he meant, so opted for "posted" as the operative word.
I disagree with EA, but with this caveat: People need to feel good to continue to give, and EA makes giving fun for a lot of rich people who want to give globally, but it is not morally superior to other types of giving. The best rational for giving is arguably the rational that inspires you to give (arguably), but
I have a local community volunteer nonprofit, which gives you a background to my perspective, but I believe that the best giving is local. Where else can you see the results directly, and have the most oversight? Yes, we are hard wired to fix the problems in front of us--but I would argue that is a good thing.
Great CrowdSource this week