Metus comments on Open thread, Dec. 15 - Dec. 21, 2014 - Less Wrong

2 Post author: Gondolinian 15 December 2014 12:01AM

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

Comments (309)

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

Comment author: solipsist 15 December 2014 01:03:22AM *  6 points [-]
  1. Your utility function need not be completely linear, just locally linear. If your utility function measures against the total good done in the world, your effect on the world will be small enough to be locally linear

  2. Most people don't want to optimize the total good done, but instead care about the amount of good they do. People donate to charity until the marginal utility they derive from purchasing moral satisfaction falls below the marginal utility they derive from purchasing other things. In this case, diversification makes sense, because utility you assign to good you're responsible for is very non-linear.

  3. If you're giving to charity at all, that's awesome. Do what motivates you.

Comment author: Metus 15 December 2014 01:17:31AM 1 point [-]

Interesting answer. Seeing as my personal giving is completely out of pleasure not some kind of moral obligation, the argument for diversification is very strong.

Comment author: Nisan 15 December 2014 01:27:17AM 3 points [-]

Ah. Well, then there doesn't seem to be anything to debate here. If you want to do what makes you happy, then do what makes you happy.

Comment author: Metus 15 December 2014 02:45:23AM 1 point [-]

The theoretical question still stands.