Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
stevenhuyn🔸6
1
0

Cool topic.

I think 'I could use this time more effectively to help other people'. And then I don't!

This is the key one to meditate on.

For me at least signing the giving pledge was a year of internalising that I have these values and I must eat them. Otherwise these aren't my values after all. Likewise for the standards of being a good friend, father, flutist etc.

Reply
See in context
by Christopher Clay
2 min read 7

48

CommunityEffective givingEffective altruism cultureOpinion
Frontpage

TL;DR: Cost-effective giving can excuse moral slip-ups in daily life. I suggest pairing it with small, personal acts of giving to stay grounded.

I’m sharing this to reflect on my struggles and get advice from the EA community.

When I was in secondary school and sixth form, I used to never do home clothes day. I gained a bit of a reputation as somebody who didn't care about charity, eager to save £2 (home clothes days have gotten damn expensive recently).

There were other reasons; Most of the time I'd genuinely forget. I also used to have some really crap clothes, so I didn't want my friends to see those. But the main reason was that I was influenced by effective altruism. Because most of these charities were especially cost-ineffective, I would think 'that money would be better off spent elsewhere'.

But then: I wouldn't take up that challenge. I'd give money to cost-effective charities - but I wasn't giving that specific £2. I'd have a misplaced sense of satisfaction (which I kind of experienced as that warm glow of giving) and keep the money.

Me, 13, emerging from this cave; I look like I've been in there for years.

Since I started working in a shop and giving 10% of my income, I've noticed this problem has been getting worse. Often someone asks for my help, unless I'm very close to them, I think 'I could use this time more effectively to help other people'. And then I don't! I take the moral obligation off my shoulders without helping anybody.

Even more, I've noticed that my donations sometimes make me feel like I have a 'free pass' on certain moral decisions. For example, I still eat meat, using the justification that my donating to animal welfare charities far outweighs the moral loss of eating meat. 

I’m sure I’m not alone in this.

A Tentative Solution

I've noticed that giving 10% at first gave me that warm fuzzy feeling, but it no longer does - and I think that's kind of the point. To turn it into such a habit that you do it without even thinking about it.

That means I have an opportunity to give more, in one way or another. I could start giving more than 10%, but part of the problem with that is that it might lose the subconscious element that allows for massive amounts to accumulate over a lifetime.

Perhaps then there's a place for actively practicing selfish giving alongside cost-effective giving; giving my time to help the people around me, even if its not the most cost-effective. Here are some benefits I foresee:

  • Improving my own wellbeing by being more connected to and liked by others.
  • By being more moral in my daily life, I can convince others (with more influence than me) that giving cost-effectively is something amazing.
  • Most importantly, grounding my morals in actually helping people can help reaffirm why I'm doing this. I feel very far removed from the place I started looking at EA from.

I hope this post didn't make me sound bad, but it's something I'd really like advice on. I'd love to hear how others in EA balance these tensions. Have you experienced similar struggles, and if so, what helped you?

48

0
0
3

Reactions

0
0
3

More posts like this

Comments7


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Ian Turner18
7
0

Personally, I view participation in the charitable projects in my community (including donating to church or to a colleague's pledge drive) as part of my consumption basket and totally unrelated to altruistic work. Relationships are incredibly important to one's life satisfaction and participating in the community is a part of that.

Reply
Holly Elmore ⏸️ 🔸7
0
0
1

Agree. One of the things I most appreciate about old school EA is that it took things that used to feel like above-and-beyond altruism in my personal life and made me see that I actually enjoyed those things selfishly. Local charitable giving or going out of my way to help a friend of a friend became less of a burden once I was "off the hook" because of giving money more effectively, and I realized that the reason I didn't want to give that stuff up was that it made me feel good and improved my life.

Reply
Christopher Clay11
0
0
2

Wow - of all the replies this makes the most sense to me! That's a great way of looking at things!

Reply
Kirsten5
3
0

Same - wrote about it once. https://x.com/kirsten3531/status/1400747953090969602?s=46&t=7jI2LUFFCdoHtZr1AtWyCA


>If I'm happy to buy you a beer or cover your portion of the Uber, why wouldn't I donate £5 or £10 to your fundraiser for a cause you care a lot about?

Reply
Davidmanheim2
0
0

I've said much the same, explicitly focused on this.

See: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/jGYoDrtf8JGw85k8T/my-personal-priorities-charity-judaism-and-effective:

To quote the most relevant part. "Lastly, local organizations or those where I have personal affiliations or feel responsibilities towards are also important to me - but... this is conceptually separate from giving charity effectively, and as I mentioned, I donate separately from the 10% dedicated to charity. I give to other organizations, including my synagogue and other local community organizations, especially charities that support the local poor around Jewish holidays, and other personally meaningful projects. But in the spirit of purchasing fuzzies separately, this is done with a smaller total amount, separate from my effective giving. "

Reply
stevenhuyn🔸6
1
0

Cool topic.

I think 'I could use this time more effectively to help other people'. And then I don't!

This is the key one to meditate on.

For me at least signing the giving pledge was a year of internalising that I have these values and I must eat them. Otherwise these aren't my values after all. Likewise for the standards of being a good friend, father, flutist etc.

Reply
River2
1
1

I'm not sure I see the problem here. By donating to effective charities, you are doing a lot of good. Whatever decision you make about eating meat or helping a random stranger who manages to approach you actually is trivial in comparison. Do those things or don't. It doesn't matter in the scheme of things. They aren't what makes you good or bad, your donations are.

Reply
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in Community
40
Feedback requested: Financial Independence Purpose Planner tool
Rebecca Herbst
· · 5m read
2
2
16
Sign up for a seminar on Christian Charity: Optimising donation in Christendom
James-Hartree-Law
· · 2m read
0
0
7
EAGxNordics in Norway: apply now
Amalie Farestvedt 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
View more