[woodruffw]

And what theory of Good determines how we do that judging? The different "schools" of EA seem to have radically different approaches ("longtermism" versus maximizing QALYs for living beings).

And even this punts on perceptive utility, the kind that Nozick warns us about[1]: it's entirely possible that Johnny in Country X gets more utility out of $100 in charitable giving than 50 others in Country Y. But this seems like a really bad logical consequence, the kind that the Internet Rationalist EA community uses to justify spending money on AGI research instead of donating to AMF.

Overall, it's much easier to live in a world where we can determine that some set of charities are worth giving to, and not try too hard to order between them.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

[JamesBarney]

Do you think it's good to donate to charities?

Do you think that some charities are more effective than other ones?

Do you think we should try to measure that to determine which ones are more effective?

[emodendroket]

When one considers that there are numerous charities with exact opposite goals I’m not sure how you can consider your three questions to have self-evident answers.

[JamesBarney]

Most charities don't have a charity with an exact opposite goal.

Most charitable donations are net good. Sure there exist a small subset of charities that aren't probably doing harm but that's the exception.

Would you argue that charitable giving is neutral or bad?

[emodendroket]

In some light it could be seen as "bad," at least as currently structured in this country: we basically allow people to withhold tax money and instead direct the money as they see fit, which has an anti-democratic implications -- in effect it as though we went to the richest Americans and said "why don't you decide how a substantial chunk of tax dollars are spent rather than Congress?" Beyond the more philosophical aspects, having been in the sausage factory for a bit, and having read about others, I think it is very easy for charities to just happen to serve their mission in a way that just happens to be more beneficial for their patrons (even if they could put superficially convincing numbers on it to prove they're highly "effective").

But I suppose I would say it's neutral; it could be good or bad depending on various characteristics of the charity itself.

[JamesBarney]

I think on avg. charities aren't so bad that the world is better off if you buy a yacht and give 20% to the government than to donate it to the average charity.

But do you at least agree the government does less good with 20 cents than a givewell charity like the AMF does with a dollar?

[woodruffw]

I think giving to charities is supererogatory, at best. At worst, it’s a reflection of a heteronomous will.