The problem is a lack of clear definition of what constitutes an unacceptable inequality in the world.
Let’s say we solve the moral emergency of children dying, would this be enough? Certainly not, we will adjust to the new reality and a new unacceptable emergency will emerge (something like better treatments for adults etc.) Is there an …
The problem is a lack of clear definition of what constitutes an unacceptable inequality in the world.
Let’s say we solve the moral emergency of children dying, would this be enough? Certainly not, we will adjust to the new reality and a new unacceptable emergency will emerge (something like better treatments for adults etc.) Is there an endpoint? Obviously, we can assert that, even if it’s not well defined, we can still do much better than we’re doing now.
But just out of curiosity, do you think there's a point where altruists would start saying, “OK we don’t need to do the 10% pledge anymore. We’ve reached enough quality of life for all?” From your conclusion, you seem to be implying that there is such a point, but it might not be the case. Our standards are simply raised by our experiences and technologies. After all, losing a child or even killing it was considered normal at some point.
Altruists can always ask, "What can I do that would do the most good?" and it would be surprising if the answer (for someone of above-average wealth) was ever "spend 100% of my resources on personal consumption for myself."
But I wouldn't personally be terribly bothered by the fact that some people are *slightly* less well-off than I am, such that I could expect to do a couple of percentage points more good by reallocating my resources to them. I think the situation we're currently in, where others get *orders of magnitude* more benefit from marginal resources than I do, is much more troubling. And it's that massive gulf, and the associated "low hanging fruit" for *massively* improving the world, that I was suggesting should be fixable.
(Ultimately it's a spectrum rather than a binary, but current global inequality is so extreme that it's pretty clear we're not currently in the "grey zone" where the urgency of altruism could reasonably be questioned.)
The problem is a lack of clear definition of what constitutes an unacceptable inequality in the world.
Let’s say we solve the moral emergency of children dying, would this be enough? Certainly not, we will adjust to the new reality and a new unacceptable emergency will emerge (something like better treatments for adults etc.) Is there an endpoint? Obviously, we can assert that, even if it’s not well defined, we can still do much better than we’re doing now.
But just out of curiosity, do you think there's a point where altruists would start saying, “OK we don’t need to do the 10% pledge anymore. We’ve reached enough quality of life for all?” From your conclusion, you seem to be implying that there is such a point, but it might not be the case. Our standards are simply raised by our experiences and technologies. After all, losing a child or even killing it was considered normal at some point.
Altruists can always ask, "What can I do that would do the most good?" and it would be surprising if the answer (for someone of above-average wealth) was ever "spend 100% of my resources on personal consumption for myself."
But I wouldn't personally be terribly bothered by the fact that some people are *slightly* less well-off than I am, such that I could expect to do a couple of percentage points more good by reallocating my resources to them. I think the situation we're currently in, where others get *orders of magnitude* more benefit from marginal resources than I do, is much more troubling. And it's that massive gulf, and the associated "low hanging fruit" for *massively* improving the world, that I was suggesting should be fixable.
(Ultimately it's a spectrum rather than a binary, but current global inequality is so extreme that it's pretty clear we're not currently in the "grey zone" where the urgency of altruism could reasonably be questioned.)