Yeah, I think Tyler Cowen offers an argument roughly along these lines in his book *Stubborn Attachments*.
One thing worth flagging is that (2) invokes an overly narrow conception of "effective charity". Longtermists, for example, are explicitly trying to find ways to do more long-term good. So the key question is just whether they're able to find anything that is better in expectation than completely undirected investment. On its face, it would be a surprising coincidence if optimizing for near-term market returns also happened to be morally optimal for long-term welfare impact. Plausibly-better options include (i) existential risk reduction, (ii) investment specifically in basic science / R&D, (iii) targeted investment in vaccine development, pandemic prevention, etc., and (iv) investment in (e.g. lab grown) meat alternatives in hopes of eventually replacing the horrific factory farming system.
An important factor to consider is thinking about where the marginal dollar should go. While markets have been good historically at improving welfare (putting aside animal welfare, which I don’t think we should put aside...), they have also received tons more money relative to money going to effective charities. While the average dollar going to markets seems to do some good, it is tough to think about how much this does relative to the marginal dollar to, for instance, AMF or some animal charity.
Thank you for your expert summaries of Parfit’s work which I have found valuable.
Here's a brief counter-argument to Parfit's precept to tithe 10% of one's income.
1. A productive economy is far and away the most effective institution for improving the material circumstances of persons in poverty.
2. Effective charity alleviates suffering over the short term.
3. Investment in economic activity alleviates much more suffering over the long term.
4. Therefore, investing 10% in responsible capitalist endeavors relieves more suffering than contributing 10% to charity.
Obviously this is a sketch, but it bears consideration.
Yeah, I think Tyler Cowen offers an argument roughly along these lines in his book *Stubborn Attachments*.
One thing worth flagging is that (2) invokes an overly narrow conception of "effective charity". Longtermists, for example, are explicitly trying to find ways to do more long-term good. So the key question is just whether they're able to find anything that is better in expectation than completely undirected investment. On its face, it would be a surprising coincidence if optimizing for near-term market returns also happened to be morally optimal for long-term welfare impact. Plausibly-better options include (i) existential risk reduction, (ii) investment specifically in basic science / R&D, (iii) targeted investment in vaccine development, pandemic prevention, etc., and (iv) investment in (e.g. lab grown) meat alternatives in hopes of eventually replacing the horrific factory farming system.
A bit late to the party but...
An important factor to consider is thinking about where the marginal dollar should go. While markets have been good historically at improving welfare (putting aside animal welfare, which I don’t think we should put aside...), they have also received tons more money relative to money going to effective charities. While the average dollar going to markets seems to do some good, it is tough to think about how much this does relative to the marginal dollar to, for instance, AMF or some animal charity.