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.
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.