[asfgionio]

This is how most people work. They value their own lives and their own happiness over that of others. They will gladly buy their luxuries and let dozens of people die as long as they don't have to see them suffer. We all know this.

Just don't fool yourself. The reason we value our own happiness over the lives of others is because we are weak. That's something we have to live with, but it doesn't make it good.

>You could say the same thing about any other startup.

And I do!

[natalyarostova]

I don't know the answer to that. Am I weak? Is it wrong that I'm on a vacation right now, when I could have donated that money instead? Some EA say just donate 10% or so of your money and don't feel bad, which is a wonderful social convention, but it is just a convention.

If you say the same about other startups, then at least you're being consistent, and it's the inconsistency that irks me.

I don't know if I'm weak or if I should be comfortable with my selfishness. I donate, but not as much as I could. I'm not sure I'll ever know the answer. I find that wrestling with the question, at least, prevents me from going down the path of buying luxury goods and signalling, so I guess it's somewhat useful.

[yayadarsh]

Serious question: where do you draw the line? At what point does life stop being a personal experience between life and death and start becoming a min-maxing of maximal utility on the planet?

While I totally understand your point, I think that the associated value judgment (you are weak if you value your own happiness over that of others) is misguided. Is strength to be solely associated with selfless altruism? What is the end-game of this ethic?