[renewiltord]

The fact that they do raise money but not as much as they would if people adhered to these ideals indicates to me that the utility function is different. i.e. that it isn't just the life that is being paid for.

And that's fine. I think people should spend their money as they see fit.

It's the bit where people make arguments from fictional moral authority that needs some push back. It's just nonsensical outrage - the opium of the partly-informed.

[astrange]

It does seem to me that the rationalist/effective altruist position here reduces your ability to help in the future, not to mention your political power.

For instance, if you're the town treasurer and you donate all the town's funds to buy mosquito nets in Africa, the townspeople might have you killed, which would prevent you from buying more mosquito nets in the future.

[renewiltord]

Certainly that is true if all spend improved one's ability to help in the future. But I think if we all honestly looked within our monthly spending statements we would find ourselves hard-pressed to make that claim.

Even accounting for second-order effects I do not believe people act in a manner consistent with arbitrary human lives being valued above some small number (less than $1000).

But there's no reason for me to convince you. You may act according to a different model of mankind and I shall act according to this model and whichever one predicts behaviour better is better.

[astrange]

Donating/tithing 10% of your income seems to have a lot of historical support. Well, if you want to spend it on mosquito nets depends on if you think saving a life from malaria is the best thing anyone could do.

[renewiltord]

I think that's a good mechanism - your community will apply significant disincentives to your not contributing, pushing up the value of contribution.