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.

Fluttershy comments on When should an Effective Altruist be vegetarian? - Less Wrong Discussion

27 Post author: KatjaGrace 23 November 2014 05:25AM

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

Comments (81)

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

Comment author: Fluttershy 24 November 2014 08:51:59PM 0 points [-]

How much do they disvalue each other losing money? If they don't care at all, then the given scenario would be better than nothing for all involved.

Perhaps there's an intervention (buying a certain number of free range eggs and selling them at the price of eggs from cage-raised hens, let's say), which costs $20 and prevents as much suffering as Alice would prevent by becoming a vegetarian for exactly one month in the above example. In this case, Alice, Bob, and Carol would better achieve their goals by donating to an organization which buys free range eggs and sells them to the public at the same price at which normal eggs are sold, than they would by investing in making Alice a vegetarian.

In this way, having multiple people believe that they should be the sole individual to receive credit for causing a given intervention to be implemented can result in suboptimal outcomes.

Comment author: DanielLC 24 November 2014 10:04:33PM 0 points [-]

If Alice knows Bob and Carol would otherwise donate to such an intervention, and she goes with that other plan you gave, then she's responsible for the donations they failed to receive. I think it can generally be assumed that people will not donate their money wisely, so you don't have to worry.