Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Kirsten5
2
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
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
2
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
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
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
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
19
Announcement: Animal Charity Evaluators is hosting an AMA on February 17 at 8-10am PT
4 authors
· · 1m read
0
0
View more