Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

icarusrising9 t1_itqtu2a wrote

Reply to comment by NdGaM in Peter Singer Is the Philosopher of the Status Quo by TuvixWasMurderedR1P

Sure! I think another criticism that's really good emerges when one looks at how corrupt lots of poverty-stricken countries are; how much money donated is actually being pocketed by dictators and bureaucrats? And one could argue that even the money that reaches it's goal just enables the corrupt machine to keep chugging on...

But ya like you said, it's unfortunate the article went way too far and ended up being a parody of much better criticisms.

3

NobleOceanAlleyCat t1_itr7a29 wrote

That’s why Singer stresses the importance of donating to particular organizations, like GiveWell.org, which measures the effectiveness of various charities and ranks them according to their impact. He has never advocated just giving to any old charity.

7

icarusrising9 t1_itsdcic wrote

The calculus GiveWell uses is necessarily focused on short-term tangible benefits. For example, there's no way their method could or would result in donating to an organization or political movement trying to bring about large-scale systemic change.

This isn't a full-throated attack on effective altruism, I actually think Singer and GiveWell are brilliant, but it definitely is something to keep in mind.

5

NdGaM t1_iu0nuab wrote

Icarus said it well, but I just wanted to clarify that I think GiveWell is quite responsible in acting in line with its mission. It just isn’t designed to invoke systematic change from the top-down, which I would say is a valid criticism even when accounting for all the unsettled debate on whether top-down or bottom-up efforts are more practical, expedient, effective, etc.

2