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.)
I am writing a paper (literature review) about arguments in favor of and against multiverse theodicy. You have discussed at least two novel arguments in this post (https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/the-best-of-all-possible-multiverses). However, this article is behind a paywall. Would you please consider sending the text of that article to my email (maxcooler98765@gmail.com)?
I will properly cite your blog in my paper (including a link to the article that I am requesting).
1) I feel like 10% pledge is too vague. Lot of people make widely different incomes and live in different places (not even just talking about country and state but even highly specific cities) where cost of living and tax rate are widely different. In the Bay Area for example, making below $104,000 is considered low income. Its ridiculous to ask someone making 100,000 in Bay Area with high cost of living and heavy tax rate to donate 10% to charity and also asking a billionaire to donate 10% of their income. I prefer Peter Singer's calculator which I still find flawed considering it doesn't consider area where person is living but at least it seems nuanced based on the actual income : https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/
2) The President of the United States is withholding funding for altruistic causes considering he feels that the money is getting wasted. I don't necessarily agree with him but I do wonder how effective the money is being spent in effective altruism rather than simply being pocketed by middle men. Also, does this money save lives or does it just prolong a suffering death a little later.
Your argument is basically talking about the common sense reason that people don’t accept the idea that we have a responsibility to save the entire world and yet you still accept the drowning child argument that mandates it. If there is no compulsion to be a radical altruism, then why is there one to be an altruist at all? It’s fine to say that altruism is supererogatory. It’s far more psychologically compatible with our nature than the alternative. If you want to help people, just argue that on its own sake instead of this whole totalizing philosophy while walking back the most extreme part.
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.)
Hello, Richard!
I am writing a paper (literature review) about arguments in favor of and against multiverse theodicy. You have discussed at least two novel arguments in this post (https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/the-best-of-all-possible-multiverses). However, this article is behind a paywall. Would you please consider sending the text of that article to my email (maxcooler98765@gmail.com)?
I will properly cite your blog in my paper (including a link to the article that I am requesting).
Couple of comments :
1) I feel like 10% pledge is too vague. Lot of people make widely different incomes and live in different places (not even just talking about country and state but even highly specific cities) where cost of living and tax rate are widely different. In the Bay Area for example, making below $104,000 is considered low income. Its ridiculous to ask someone making 100,000 in Bay Area with high cost of living and heavy tax rate to donate 10% to charity and also asking a billionaire to donate 10% of their income. I prefer Peter Singer's calculator which I still find flawed considering it doesn't consider area where person is living but at least it seems nuanced based on the actual income : https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/
2) The President of the United States is withholding funding for altruistic causes considering he feels that the money is getting wasted. I don't necessarily agree with him but I do wonder how effective the money is being spent in effective altruism rather than simply being pocketed by middle men. Also, does this money save lives or does it just prolong a suffering death a little later.
Your argument is basically talking about the common sense reason that people don’t accept the idea that we have a responsibility to save the entire world and yet you still accept the drowning child argument that mandates it. If there is no compulsion to be a radical altruism, then why is there one to be an altruist at all? It’s fine to say that altruism is supererogatory. It’s far more psychologically compatible with our nature than the alternative. If you want to help people, just argue that on its own sake instead of this whole totalizing philosophy while walking back the most extreme part.