Effective altruism is built on the simple but unsettling idea that living a fully ethical life involves doing the most good one can. In this course you will examine this idea's philosophical underpinnings; meet remarkable people who have restructured their lives in accordance with it; and think about how effective altruism can be put into practice in your own life.
Questions and Answers, Part 2
Loading...
En provenance du cours de Princeton University
Effective Altruism
244 notes
À partir de la leçon
How Much Ought We Do to Help Others?
In this week you will meet three individuals who in different ways embody the ideal of effective altruism: Zell Kravinsky, Julia Wise and Alexander Berger.
Rencontrer les enseignants
Peter SingerIra W. Decamp Professor of Bioethics
University Center for Human Values
Anyone
else?
>> Over there.
>> Sorry?
What?
yes, one.
>> To what degree do you think that
making personal altruistic choices is more or less important
than affecting political change that would perhaps change the
circumstances of the people that you are talking about.
>> Okay, so this is a question about the relative
importance of making personal contributions,
rather than contributing to political change.
Julia since you have been fielding a lot of questions, maybe we will go
to you Alexander if you'd like to, comment on this and then we can.
Perhaps I'll get a comment from, from the others after.
>> Yeah, sure.
I mean, this is something I thought a considerable amount about and
it's something that to some extent, I work on as part of my
work at Goodwill, trying to think through well, you know, what kinds of
differences can, philanth, philanthropic dollars make
when they're trying to achieve policy change.
I mean, I think that there's one sense in which.
The answer is just going to be sort of a purely empirical one, which is,
you know, you might have some opportunities
to try and influence policy in your life.
You as a Princeton students, you might have
access to certain kinds of opportunities or circles.
And so, like, I don't think there's necessarily a one
size fits all answer about the likely returns over those activities.
Certainly, there's cases where I think that, that those kinds
of opportunities are the, the best ones one might be
able to take, whether with dollars or with career choices,
and those are obviously going to be fairly different calculations.
You know, I, I don't agree that this is
something where, there's a sort of like [UNKNOWN] or logical
argument that, you know, you just need the privilege,
political exercise over sort of personal spending or personal efforts.
You know, the, the basic story I would tell here is just that, you know,
people like Julia, who are giving sort
of really considerable amounts of their personal wealth.
Or income to people living in, in developing world, or in particularly
poor countries I think, you know, serve as a, as a sort
of obvious constituency for various kinds of political change and that
by, by being out there and publicly working towards these kinds of efforts.
I, I, I, I fine it hard to believe
that were there not, you know, a lot more Julia's,
and Jeff's running around, the discourse onforeign aid, and
other aspects of US policy that really affect poor people.
Would it be sort of in a much better situation?
Though I, I, sort of deny that there's
like a strict dichotomy but I'm using like, there's
a really good question for individual about like, exactly
what the trade-offs are and where the returns lie.
And I don't think it's obvious that, you know, one or the other always wins.
>> So, you mentioned coming from a family that has a leftist political background.
Did, did you think, when you decided to give
money away that maybe you would give it to some
organization that's working for political change, rather than donating it
to what's a more conventionally thought of as a charity?
>> I guess the argument can be made, I, I don't know if I was
on the mic when I was telling you about my, my father believed he was against,
he was angry at, at the money I gave away, and said that I'd made a fool of myself,
and he believed that private philanthropy blunts the edge of revolutionary fervor.
So, and, and that, you know, that's something that
[INAUDIBLE] against private philanthropy, [UNKNOWN]
was against private Philanthropy, they
were terrified by the thought that, by [UNKNOWN] who could
make things better and then, you wouldn't have a revolution.
Alright, but the revolution didn't make things all that better [CROSSTALK].
I, I think that the best argument against, I'm not saying that
you shouldn't support progressive causes, but the best argument against it is that
the, the time, energy and money that you're putting into one cause
is being matched by same amount being put into the opposite cause and
that hundred billion dollars, supposedly, that's spent in every election cycle on
getting people elected will be enough to lift Africa out of poverty.
>> Did you want to comment on that too?
>> I, I do think there may be cases were, certainly there are a
lot of cases where, different political sides are just butting heads and it's just
sort of a waste of money but there may be cases where policy could
just be done better in a way that no one is especially opposed to.
And I think part of the the emphasis
that we're seeing now on doing charitable interventions better,
you know, having them be more effective, more transparent,
more measurable, and being able to tell what's happening.
I think that's a really positive thing in general, and I'm hoping that
that will, you know, go forth to some public policy things as well.
>> So that we're actually getting assessments of whether
you get good value for your dollars in public
policy, and I think [INAUDIBLE] are starting to look
at that, is that is that right Alexander they're?
Yeah, I mean mostly we're still thinking from the
perspective of people who are giving sort of private dollars.
And the question is sort of like, how can you
influence policy using those dollars in a way that, that's productive
and meaningful as opposed to sort of trying to say,
with a government as the sort of recipient of our research?
You know, what, what could, how can government policies improve and
then ourselves sort of trying to get them to practice that.
So I, I guess I would say like, we're
less think tank, more sort of like, philanthropic adviser.
There certainly are a lot of groups out
there now who are trying to think about the
question, you know, how could government policy be
sort of, more transparent, more effective, more evidence based?
And really trying to, sort of, advocate to the government directly
on that, it's just, not where we see our comparative advantage.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
sorry, we're over here.
>> What if, instead of donating now, I were to invest that money?
>> So the question was what about if instead of donating now
you invested that money you suggested investing it in a mutual fund.
In Zell's case maybe you could invest it
himself, since he's got a very successful record of
doing that, and therefore had more, had more to
give away some 20 years down the tracks [INAUDIBLE].
>> But, you know, I, I guess there
are a number of arguments you, you obviously know
the arguments for it which is the, the
accumulation of capital over the years will be considerable.
But the argument, one argument against [COUGH]
is that you'll loose the philanthropic impulse.
Another argument against it is that the, indulging that
philanthropic impulse is actually creating happiness of mind in you.
That will cause you to be more [INAUDIBLE] successful in the
future so you, your net giveaway in the end will be greater.
If their argument is that exigent circumstances exist
now that are, they're tremendously pressing and they have
to be met immediately and but the main
argument, I think, is that people don't do it.
>> You say anything [CROSSTALK] becomes an excuse for not giving at all.
>> The rational, rationalization yeah.
>> Go ahead [INAUDIBLE]
>> I th, I think also yeah personally, I want to keep in the habit of giving.
I don't want to risk, you know, getting to age sixty, and deciding.
That, you know, changing my mind.
But I also think that.
So, through places like Give Well, I
think the philanthropic scene is changing, and there
is more evidence based giving, you know, or
giving to charities that can demonstrate their impact.
I think that's really important, and I think
that's something I want to support and want to encourage.
And donation I think is the best way to do that,
so I'm hoping that by the time I'm sixty, you know,
charities will be better and it will be easier to find
better charities, which is some people's reason for wanting to wait.
But, I also think that they're not as
likely to improve, if we're not giving them that
incentive ,which is that they see there are donations
out there, for charities that are improving their impact.
>> And I think the other thing that.
[CROSSTALK]
>> I, I agree with Julia on that last point especially.
But, I just want to add, I mean, I
do think that there's a really clear trajectory
in global health towards sort of cheap, cost-effective
things being taken up and taken care of basically.
You know, 20 years ago you could have
paid to get more kids, like, really basic, cheap
childhood vaccines, and now the vast majority of
those are done, or at least the cheapest ones.
And so, you know, this [UNKNOWN] third point,
but the, the world keeps getting better in
ways that I think make it harder and
harder to use money to make a positive impact.
And if, my guess is that it's getting better, at a rate that's faster than
like whatever investment returns you're going to make,
maybe Zell is a, is an, exception, but
for most of us who are sort of going to buy like, diversified index funds, you're
not going to be, I think the pace of sort of positive change of the world.
And so, the prior I think should
be, you're going to give sooner rather than later.
Julia's pointed out, giving continuously, and helping the
community grow, I think it's, an important one, [INAUDIBLE]
>> Okay, so in other words, you're saying you can actually make a
bigger impact now than you might be able to make in, in 20 years.
And I'd also add that there may be some
kind of other kind of investment payoff in that if
you contribute to make a family better off now the
children perhaps are better nourished, therefore their brains develop better.
Or, perhaps they get education which they wouldn't have got
before, and they may therefore be able to do great
things to boost the economy of their country, which they
would not have done if you had not given them,
>> There's also.
>> Yeah, we're going to have to wind up soon [CROSSTALK]
>> Just a quick point that the US tax code makes it extraordinary more advantageous
to give, before you die, then, then it's, [INAUDIBLE] donations, it makes.
If, if you have money, it makes no sense, to, to wait and give
people the money in your will when you can set up charitable trusts now.
>> But, definitely better to give while you're still alive, and also
in fact if you're, giving large amounts, to give each year, right?
Because there is actually a limit to how much you
can de, deduct, and if you, were thinking I won't give
anything for 20 years but then I'll give it all
it's more tax effective to give some of it each year.
We are going to have to wind up so I'm sure say
thank you to Alexander and a thank you to [INAUDIBLE] [NOISE]
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Explorer notre catalogue
Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.
Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde,
en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.
