May 25, 2023·edited May 25, 2023Liked by Bentham's Bulldog
The concept behind that quote is that simultaneous mutual care has a substantial benefit beyond the direct benefits of the care, in the form of a strengthened relationship.
EDIT: It makes sense that altruism between neighbors, particularly in a walkable, liveable urban environment, would pay large dividends in quality of life for them all, though it doesn't seem like this is particularly at odds with EA, since presumably it would increase people's productivity at the same time.
When you convert “doing good” into money, and then decide people with less money do less good for the world and have less potential to do good for the world, you simply placed a good-bad ethical template onto the established systems and structures of things. Money = the good you can do. Very quickly, the good you can do becomes your instrumental worth in someone else’s pursuit of doing the most good.
One's doing good does not correlate much with money. However, if one is spending their money effectively, such that they can save lives at low cost, then having more money will result in them doing more good.
It's not a competition. It's not about you, and whether you can do more good than others. Take the spotlight off yourself and put it on those you're trying to help.
You only need to ask: how can I do the most good? Pretty simple really.
See. Some people have claimed that they cannot respond substantively to the effective altruism movement. They claim that all they can write is snark without substance.
These people have clearly not read Nietzsche. (Understandable. I have also not read him)
💞and how do we all want to ‘walk each other home’ I ask. (Ram Dass)
As in your writing, using kindness and with compassion is how we want to walk beside each other on this journey.
What do you mean?
The concept behind that quote is that simultaneous mutual care has a substantial benefit beyond the direct benefits of the care, in the form of a strengthened relationship.
EDIT: It makes sense that altruism between neighbors, particularly in a walkable, liveable urban environment, would pay large dividends in quality of life for them all, though it doesn't seem like this is particularly at odds with EA, since presumably it would increase people's productivity at the same time.
When you convert “doing good” into money, and then decide people with less money do less good for the world and have less potential to do good for the world, you simply placed a good-bad ethical template onto the established systems and structures of things. Money = the good you can do. Very quickly, the good you can do becomes your instrumental worth in someone else’s pursuit of doing the most good.
One's doing good does not correlate much with money. However, if one is spending their money effectively, such that they can save lives at low cost, then having more money will result in them doing more good.
It's not a competition. It's not about you, and whether you can do more good than others. Take the spotlight off yourself and put it on those you're trying to help.
You only need to ask: how can I do the most good? Pretty simple really.
Agreed! But one way that people can sometimes do more good is if they donate and earning money enables one to donate more.
See. Some people have claimed that they cannot respond substantively to the effective altruism movement. They claim that all they can write is snark without substance.
These people have clearly not read Nietzsche. (Understandable. I have also not read him)