jimrandomh comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - Less Wrong

23 Post author: XiXiDu 12 August 2010 02:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (600)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jimrandomh 15 August 2010 12:36:15AM 4 points [-]

It seems obvious why those at the top of charity pyramids support utilitarian ethics - their funding depends on it. The puzzle here is why they find so many suckers to exploit.

This reads like an attack on utilitarian ethics, but there's an extra inferential step in the middle which makes it compatible with utilitarian ethics being correct. Are you claiming that utilitarian ethics are wrong? Are you claiming that most charities are actually fraudulent and don't help people?

"charity pyramid" ... "good parents work to keep their kids away" ... "utilitarian cults" ... "feeding tentacles of these parasitic entities that exploit ... for their own ends"

Wow, my propagandometer is pegged. Why did you choose this language? Isn't exploiting people for their own ends incompatable with being utilitarian? Do you have any examples of charities structured like pyramid schemes, or as cults?

Comment author: timtyler 15 August 2010 06:51:59AM *  -1 points [-]

"Are you claiming that utilitarian ethics are wrong?"

"Right" and "wrong" are usually concepts that are applied with respect to an ethical system. Which ethical system am I expected to assume when trying to make sense of this questiion?

"Are you claiming that most charities are actually fraudulent and don't help people?"

No - I was not talking about that.

"Isn't exploiting people for their own ends incompatable with being utilitarian?"

If a charity's goals include "famine relief", then considerable means would be justified by that - within a utilitarian framework.

"Charity pyramids" was a loosely-chosen term. There may be some pyramid structure - but the image I wanted to convey was of a cause with leader(s) preaching the virtues of utilitarianism - being supported in their role by a "base" of "suckers" - individuals who are being duped into giving many of their resources to the cause.

Superficially, the situation represents a bit of a Darwinian puzzle: Are the "suckers" being manipulated? Have they been hypnotised? Do they benefit in some way by the affiliation? Are they fooled into treating the cause as part of their extended family? Are they simply broken? Do they aspire to displace the leader? Have their brains been hijacked by pathogenic memes? What is going on?