Comment by joshuamorton | Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshuamorton | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I've always thought of the "Effective Altruism" movement as a product of big egos. The ones following it think they know better than the ones they're 'saving'.

At least initially, EA was a pretty big proponent of direct aid like GiveDirectly[0], because just giving people money was seen to be more effective than most (though not all[1]) other forms of aid.

As for myself, I don't see why someone on the other side of the world would be more or less pitiful than someone locally. My main reason for preferring indirect aid is that there's something morally suspicious to me about only people in my "clan" receiving my charity. Is it really charity if it goes only to people who I like and who are within knowing distance of me? Or am I trying to achieve something? (For the same reasons, I'm careful to keep most of my work anonymous)

[0]: GiveWell directed a lot of funds to GiveDirectly early on (https://www.givewell.org/top-charities-fund), though they haven't since 2016.

[1]: Healthcare interventions like deworming are usually more efficient per dollar, but not by much, but they benefit from economies of scale so directing money to them direction is worthwhile.

I’ve always approached it from the other side and wondered about the appeal of altruism. Is it really so bad if you help your neighbor or someone you know? If you benefit from the improvement in your community is it some how less valuable? Your own community or clan is what you know best, what you are best positioned to help in monetary and non monetary ways. I also wonder if there is any true altruism. I think people usually benefit from their service or donation even if it’s just feeling good (or perhaps feeling superior to people who focus on supporting their own communities).

I've thought this too.

> If you benefit from the improvement in your community is it some how less valuable?

Yes. Its less valuable by definition because you are subtracting value from the system for yourself in the form of increased social standing.

There is a reason that charity should be anonymous. Its not charity otherwise, its quid quo pro.

I think your example is pretty much the definition of zero-sum thinking - why would a benefit to you automatically "subtract value from the system".

I would argue it's a positive sum transaction - the person you helped receives something of value, from a real human they know, strengthening the relationship between the two of you, others in the community see that and are encouraged to do the same, and the recipient feels a sense of obligation to at "pay it forward" any way they can leading to further "good works".

Have you really never received anything of value from someone who had no obligation to do so? Not even a lead on a new job, or an introduction to someone who helped your career, or a mentor? If so, do you really feel the situation would have been better if that information had arrived in an anonymous form?

I cannot think of a reason to prefer to help a neighbor over someone who is vastly more in need who is further away. I think that's the main thrust of the argument.

In my mind the arguments for it are - by helping your neighbor you strengthen your own community, hopefully benefitting yourself and your family

- you don’t have the same understanding of the needs of a community further away. You won’t be able to directly observe the impact of your actions (positive or negative)

You have a better chance of knowing what would actually help the neighbor. That is, the odds of help actually helping are higher.

I am not saying "don't help those who are far away". But you can make a case for giving greater emphasis to helping those who are closer to you purely on effectiveness grounds.

You’ve “wondered” whether it’s actually preferable to help fewer people in less substantial and less cost-effective ways just because they happen to live near you?

What answer did you find in this inquiry?

Honestly I haven’t come to a conclusion. It sounds like you are well versed in EA principals and arguments so I’d be curious to hear your thoughts.

From my (admittedly shallow) understanding of effective altruism I question how well we can define the ‘effectivness’ of an action. I worry it prioritizes quantifiable metrics that are easy to compare over more diffuse benefits such as connection and personal bonds that are more difficult to measure (but equally important). For example I suspect you would argue it’s more cost effective to buy rice from an international supplier and feed 100 people than to use the same money to build a neighborhood garden with supplies from local businesses and feed a handful of people. But in one case the money remains in the community and continues to do good while in the other it simply further enriches an international conglomerate.

In one case you build community bonds and create a place for people to come together while in the other you potentially undercut the local suppliers, reducing the food supply in an area in the long term.

This is obviously a contrived hypothetical but I’m hoping you can read it in good faith and try to understand a different perspective.

Versus cash, I imagine healthcare is nice because it's not like warlord/agent can seize/embezzle all the cataract surgeries or whatever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com