Hide table of contents

My research team and I are working on a research project designed to promote effective giving. 

We hypothesize that participants will be more likely to engage in effective giving (e.g., donate to GiveWell-endorsed charities) if they reflect on the ways in which effective giving is congruent with their values & beliefs.

As part of this project, we are trying to identify EA-related beliefs that are widely held. We’re going to be targeting university students and online workers (the vast majority of whom have never heard of EA).

We’re looking for advice

I’m including a few of the statements we’ve brainstormed. These are supposed to be statements that are aligned with EA and nearly everyone will endorse. At the beginning of our intervention, we will ask people to rate each statement (from strongly disagree to strongly agree).

Here are a few examples of statements that we’ve brainstormed so far (the full list is provided at the end of the post):

  • Unnecessary suffering should be prevented 
  • All else equal, helping more people is better than helping fewer 
  • I think charitable organizations should be transparent about how they spend money.
  • I think some charitable organizations make a bigger difference than others. 
  • Helping more is better than helping less (all else being equal, we should save more lives, help people live longer, and make people happier)

With this in mind, I’m wondering if you have any suggestions for additional phrases we could include. Alternatively, feel free to let me know if you would remove any statements from the full list below.

If you want to learn more about this project, feel free to read our proposal here or email me at wasil@sas.upenn.edu.

Full list of statements:

  • Unnecessary suffering should be prevented 
  • All else equal, helping more people is better than helping fewer 
  • The country where someone is born should not determine how much they matter morally
  • I am motivated to do things that make a difference for others
  • Charities are often bureaucratic and ineffective
  • Helping people can be rewarding 
  • Volunteering to help someone can be a productive use of time 
  • I think charitable organizations should be transparent about how they spend money.
  • I think some charitable organizations make a bigger difference than others. 
  • I think everyone deserves equal access to opportunity 
  • I think people of all backgrounds should be treated equally
  • Fairness is very important to me
  • I think everyone should have access to basic necessities, like food and water
  • It’s important to help others (when people are in need and we can help them, I think that we should)
  • People are of equal moral value (all people matter: everyone has an equal claim to be happy, healthy, fulfilled and free)
  • Helping more is better than helping less (all else being equal, we should save more lives, help people live longer, and make people happier)
  • Our resources are limited (everyone has a finite amount of money, all of us only have so many minutes in our lives)
  • Helping others is an important part of life
  • It’s important to help others (when people are in need and we can help them, I think that we should)
  • People are of equal moral value (all people matter: everyone has an equal claim to be happy, healthy, fulfilled and free)
  • Helping more is better than helping less (all else being equal, we should save more lives, help people live longer, and make people happier)
  • Our resources are limited (everyone has a finite amount of money, all of us only have so many minutes in our lives)
Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Some of the items about it being generally good/productive to help people felt redundant -- not sure whether that's an issue for your research.

  • I think everyone deserves equal access to opportunity
  • Fairness is very important to me
  • I think everyone should have access to basic necessities, like food and water

This cluster of items could be seen as somewhat political (especially "equal access to opportunity"). I think they may not be as universal as you'd think (though when presented in a non-political situation, they might not bother even people who nominally disagree with them in political contexts).

I'd consider adding items about more specific areas, like animals and the long-term future. For example:

  • It's wrong to torture animals for our own pleasure
  • We should try to make the world a good place to live for our descendants
  • People in future generations shouldn't be punished for our mistakes

Yes, and I would also highlight this one:

People are of equal moral value (all people matter: everyone has an equal claim to be happy, healthy, fulfilled and free)

I think many people might disagree, perhaps thinking that actually:

  • Good people have more value than bad people
  • Children matter more than old people
  • Smokers have less of a claim to be healthy than non-smokers
  • Criminals have less of a claim on being free than law-abiding citizens
  • People who work hard have more right to be happy than those who are lazy
  • We have a right to the pursuit of happiness, but not a guarantee we will succeed.

Some possible new ones for you:

  • It is bad to put other people at risk of death
  • We should think about the future when making decisions
  • New technologies can cause big changes
  • Nuclear war would be bad
  • It is bad for children to die
  • Hurting animals unnecessarily is bad
  • If a charity is just wasting all its money you shouldn't donate

and perhaps the most unifying view of them all:

  • I hate Mosquitoes 

Interesting – please keep me in the loop with this research 😀 

I often ask these questions and get 95%+ agreement when teaching a class.

Curated and popular this week
TL;DR * Screwworm Free Future is a new group seeking support to advance work on eradicating the New World Screwworm in South America. * The New World Screwworm (C. hominivorax - literally "man-eater") causes extreme suffering to hundreds of millions of wild and domestic animals every year. * To date we’ve held private meetings with government officials, experts from the private sector, academics, and animal advocates. We believe that work on the NWS is valuable and we want to continue our research and begin lobbying. * Our analysis suggests we could prevent about 100 animals from experiencing an excruciating death per dollar donated, though this estimate has extreme uncertainty. * The screwworm “wall” in Panama has recently been breached, creating both an urgent need and an opportunity to address this problem. * We are seeking $15,000 to fund a part-time lead and could absorb up to $100,000 to build a full-time team, which would include a team lead and another full-time equivalent (FTE) role * We're also excited to speak to people who have a background in veterinary science/medicine, entomology, gene drives, as well as policy experts in Latin America. - please reach out if you know someone who fits this description!   Cochliomyia hominivorax delenda est Screwworm Free Future is a new group of volunteers who connected through Hive investigating the political and scientific barriers stopping South American governments from eradicating the New World Screwworm. In our shallow investigation, we have identified key bottlenecks, but we now need funding and people to take this investigation further, and begin lobbying. In this post, we will cover the following: * The current status of screwworms * Things that we have learnt in our research * What we want to do next * How you can help by funding or supporting or project   What’s the deal with the New World Screwworm? The New World Screwworm[1] is the leading cause of myiasis in Latin America. Myiasis “
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Does a food carbon tax increase animal deaths and/or the total time of suffering of cows, pigs, chickens, and fish? Theoretically, this is possible, as a carbon tax could lead consumers to substitute, for example, beef with chicken. However, this is not per se the case, as animal products are not perfect substitutes.  I'm presenting the results of my master's thesis in Environmental Economics, which I re-worked and published on SSRN as a pre-print. My thesis develops a model of animal product substitution after a carbon tax, slaughter tax, and a meat tax. When I calibrate[1] this model for the U.S., there is a decrease in animal deaths and duration of suffering following a carbon tax. This suggests that a carbon tax can reduce animal suffering. Key points * Some animal products are carbon-intensive, like beef, but causes relatively few animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are large. Other animal products, like chicken, causes relatively many animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are small, but cause relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. * A carbon tax will make some animal products, like beef, much more expensive. As a result, people may buy more chicken. This would increase animal suffering, assuming that farm animals suffer. However, this is not per se the case. It is also possible that the direct negative effect of a carbon tax on chicken consumption is stronger than the indirect (positive) substitution effect from carbon-intensive products to chicken. * I developed a non-linear market model to predict the consumption of different animal products after a tax, based on own-price and cross-price elasticities. * When calibrated for the United States, this model predicts a decrease in the consumption of all animal products considered (beef, chicken, pork, and farmed fish). Therefore, the modelled carbon tax is actually good for animal welfare, assuming that animals live net-negative lives. * A slaughter tax (a
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
As 2024 draws to a close, I’m reflecting on the work and stories that inspired me this year: those from the effective altruism community, those I found out about through EA-related channels, and those otherwise related to EA. I’ve appreciated the celebration of wins and successes over the past few years from @Shakeel Hashim's posts in 2022 and 2023. As @Lizka and @MaxDalton put very well in a post in 2022: > We often have high standards in effective altruism. This seems absolutely right: our work matters, so we must constantly strive to do better. > > But we think that it's really important that the effective altruism community celebrate successes: > > * If we focus too much on failures, we incentivize others/ourselves to minimize the risk of failure, and we will probably be too risk averse. > * We're humans: we're more motivated if we celebrate things that have gone well. Rather than attempting to write a comprehensive review of this year's successes and wins related to EA, I want to share what has personally moved me this year—progress that gave me hope, individual stories and acts of altruism, and work that I found thought-provoking or valuable. I’ve structured the sections below as prompts to invite your own reflection on the year, as I’d love to hear your responses in the comments. We all have different relationships with EA ideas and the community surrounding them, and I find it valuable that we can bring different perspectives and responses to questions like these. What progress in the world did you find exciting? * The launch of the Lead Exposure Elimination Fund this year was exciting to see, and the launch of the Partnership for a Lead-Free Future. The fund jointly committed over $100 million to combat lead exposure, compared to the $15 million in private funding that went toward lead exposure reduction in 2023. It’s encouraging to see lead poisoning receiving attention and funding after being relatively neglected. * The Open Wing Alliance repor
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
31
cescorza
· · 2m read