[lesuorac]

> The arguments always feel to me too similar "it is good Carnegie called in the Pinkerton's to suppress labor

Is that an actual EA argument?

The value is all at the margins. Like Carnegie had legitimate functional businesses that would be profitable without Pinkerton's. So without Pinkerton's he'd still be able to afford probably every philanthropic thing he did so it doesn't justify it.

I don't really follow the EA space but the actual arguments I've heard are largely about working in FANG to make 3x the money outside of fang to allow them to donate 1x ~1.5x the money. Which to me is very justifiable.

But to stick with the article. I don't think taking in billions via fraud to donate some of it to charity is a net positive on society.

[8note]

> I don't think taking in billions via fraud to donate some of it to charity is a net positive on society.

it could be though, if by first centralizing those billions, you could donate more effectively than the previous holders of that money could. the fraud victims may have never donated in the first place, or have donated to the wrong thing, or not enough to make the right difference.

[JohnFen]

"The ends justify the means" is a terrible, and terribly dangerous, argument.

[Sporktacular]

But if it's a net positive, the point is made.

[jmount]

That is the point. Much clearer than I was. Thank you.

[hobs]

When you work for something that directly contradicts peaceful civil society you are basically saying the mass murder of today is ok because it allows you to assuage your guilt by giving to your local charity - its only effective if altruism is not your goal.

[lesuorac]

It still depends on the marginal contribution.

A janitor at the CIA in the 1960s is certainly working at an organization that is disrupting the peaceful Iranian society and turning it into a "death to America" one. But I would not agree that they're doing a net-negative for society because the janitor's marginal contribution towards that objective is 0.

It might not be the best thing the janitor could do to society (as compared to running a soup kitchen).

[Eisenstein]

> Is that an actual EA argument?

you missed this part: "The arguments always feel to me too similar"

> The value is all at the margins. Like Carnegie had legitimate functional businesses that would be profitable without Pinkerton's. So without Pinkerton's he'd still be able to afford probably every philanthropic thing he did so it doesn't justify it.

That isn't what OP was engaging with though, they aren't asking for you to answer the question 'what could Carnegie have done better' they are saying 'the philosophy seems to be arguing this particular thing'.