Comment by skrbjc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by skrbjc | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The argument of the data seems to say we should put resources towards those with more adverse experiences in childhood.

But I wonder, if you were optimizing for improving more people's lives in a more meaningful way with limited funds, would you come to the conclusion that you could do so by focusing on improving the lives of those in the no adverse experiences group because you might be able to get more "life improvement units" per dollar?

Most think resources should be targeted towards groups that "deserve it more" because they are "worse off", but it's interesting to think if your goal is to create more happiness or whatever per dollar, maybe the discussion would lead us to investing in groups that are not on the proverbial "bottom"

If you haven't already look up John Rawls he's probably the most famous person who has argued for helping the worst off.

Of course reading his books would be the best source but for now here's a link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#JusFaiJusWitLibSoc

>Most think resources should be targeted towards groups that "deserve it more" because they are "worse off"

I believe there is behavioral game theory research that shows we are hard-wired for "fairness", even at the expense of a more optimal solution. E.g., Two subjects are given $100 to split and one was allowed to determine the split and the other the choice to accept it or both would go with nothing. A "$90/$10" split would often be rejected, even though the decider is giving up $10 and instead choosing nothing because of a sense of being slighted.

We're hard-wired for fairness toward ourselves than to others. That's why $90/$10 splits exist, but $10/$9 splits don't.

It depends entirely on how you define utility.

Making rich people happier makes me more unhappy that it makes them more happy, so by your calculus it's not worth helping them.

See how quickly this line of reasoning runs aground?

Probably the whole concept of utility breaks down if we were to include schadenfreude like that

Reply on news.ycombinator.com