You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

AlexanderRM comments on Approaching rationality via a slippery slope - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: paulfchristiano 04 April 2011 05:51AM

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

Comments (11)

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

Comment author: AlexanderRM 05 October 2015 02:02:41AM 0 points [-]

A more practical and simple (and possibly legal) idea for abusing knowledge of irrational charity: Instead of asking for money to save countless children, ask for money to save one, specific child.

If one circulated a message on the internet saying that donations could save the life of a specific child, obviously if you then used the money for something unrelated there would be laws against that. But if you simply, say, A: lied about why they were in danger of dying, B: overstated the amount of money needed, C: left out the nationality of the child, and D: Used the money to save a large number of children, do you think a court would convict that?

Getting the money towards some cause where the child-saving is a lot less direct, like technological research or SIAI, would probably get hit for lying, but for something like fighting Malaria or the like that might be incredibly useful.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 05 October 2015 11:09:20AM *  1 point [-]

If one circulated a message on the internet saying that donations could save the life of a specific child, obviously if you then used the money for something unrelated there would be laws against that. But if you simply, say, A: lied about why they were in danger of dying, B: overstated the amount of money needed, C: left out the nationality of the child, and D: Used the money to save a large number of children, do you think a court would convict that?

You have just rediscovered the idea, "I know, why not just lie!" On which, see this.

I predict that (a) you would be found out, (b) if it came to court, the court would convict (fraud in a good cause is still fraud), and (c) so would the forum of public opinion.

ETA: See also.