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.

LessRightToo comments on “Be A Superdonor!”: Promoting Effective Altruism by Appealing to the Heart - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: Gleb_Tsipursky 09 November 2015 06:20PM

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

Comments (82)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: LessRightToo 09 November 2015 08:54:30PM *  3 points [-]

Superdonor conveys a feeling of superiority, as in better than other donors. In other words, even if you donate less, if you donate more effectively, you can still be better than other donors by donating more effectively.

My personal preference is that you promote honorable reasons for donating, while recognizing that dishonorable reasons exist. Donating so that I can feel superior to other donors who give less or give differently does not strike me as particularly honorable. I admit that I am using the term honor without ever having given much thought as to what it means.

Comment author: bogus 10 November 2015 10:48:10AM 1 point [-]

Whether donating to a super-effective charity should make you feel "superior" to other donors is largely a matter of personal choice. But I don't think that pointedly conveying the message that charities vary widely in effectiveness is persay dishonorable.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 11 November 2015 12:26:41AM -1 points [-]

Yup, agreed!

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 11 November 2015 12:26:15AM -1 points [-]

I'm confused by your use of the term "honor." Let's taboo that term. Can you explain what's wrong with desiring to be better than others?

Comment author: LessRightToo 13 November 2015 02:46:28AM *  0 points [-]

In its purest form, giving is intentionally impoverishing yourself in order to enrich another (the terms impoverish, enrich, and another can be as defined as narrowly or as broadly as you'd like). A person who makes some gesture for the sole purpose of self-elevation is not actually giving, no matter how generous the gesture may appear to casual observers. The most effective campaigns I've seen in the charitable giving domain emphasize positive outcomes for others rather than appealing to a donor's vanity or encouraging narcissism.

Comment author: Gleb_Tsipursky 13 November 2015 05:35:34AM -1 points [-]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. So it's a matter of purity of motivations. As a consequentialist I am mainly concerned with the outcome of people caring about effective giving and therefore giving to effective, evidence-based charities, and if getting them to desire self-elevation will motivate donors, then I'm happy to use that to achieve the outcome.