Doing Good Better

@eriktorenberg I'm now on-line! :)

@jacqvon and to piggyback on this, what was the biggest takeaway from his most recent book?

@jacqvon In a few ways. Historically he's been sympathetic to the view that wellbeing consists in preference-satisfaction, whereas I've been more sympathetic to the view that wellbeing consists in positive experiences; he's been sympathetic to the view that moral statements are more like expressions of desires, whereas I've been more sympathetic to the view that moral statements are attempts to describe facts just like scientific statements. However, I've heard that recently he's been coming round to my perspective! The biggest difference is our relationship to utilitarianism. Peter is a die-hard utilitarian. I'm sympathetic to utilitarianism, and think there are very strong arguments for that view, but it's not how I guide my choices. Instead, as I argue in my PhD, I think you should give weight to a variety of different moral views in which you have some degree of confidence, and then choose actions that represent the best compromise between those views. That means I think we do have strong obligations to help others; but also that I think you shouldn't e.g. kill one person to save the greater number.

@jeffumbro That's hard to say. I think the biggest idea contained in it (which I also talk about) is that of cause-neutrality. Normally when people talk about effectiveness they talk about how to be as effective as possible within a cause (like US education, or animal welfare, or extreme poverty), but choose a cause based on personal passion. Cause-neutrality (or 'strategic cause selection') is about being open to the idea of pursuing programs within any cause, and being willing to change your mind about which cause to focus on. I think that's very important. Even the very most effective programs that are tackling US poverty just aren't, in my view, going to compare to the most effective programs tackling extreme poverty. So if you chose the wrong cause, you could lose most of your impact.

@melissajoykong I think it's great that there are so many people wanting to create big organisations for social change. But I think what's lacking is a better understanding of which programs are most effective. charity:water builds wells, which is easy for the general public to understand but isn't the most effective water-related program; Pencils of Promise build schools, which is similarly easy to understand but isn't the most effective educational program; kids do wear TOMS shoes, but they don't seem to have an impact on school attendence or self-esteem. So I think it's cool that business-savvy folks are entering this space, and I'd like to see it happen more. But people should bear in mind that it's very hard to do good effectively, that there's a massive body of scientific evidence that can help us do good effectively, and if you don't pay attention to that and instead just do something that's sexy or sellable, you'll probably squander most of your impact.

@melissajoykong Big debate! Importantly, when I use the term 'altruism' I use it differently from biologists. They use it to mean self-sacrifice - doing something that apparently reduces personal reproductive fitness in order to increase the reproductive fitness others. That creates a paradox for evolutionary theory. When I use the term, though, I just mean actions that benefit other people. Maybe taking actions that help other people improves your reproductive fitness - if so great! If not, maybe not. But on the nature/nurture question: I think like almost any trait it's a mix of the two. I think the majority of people want to use their lives to make the world a better place. But how that plays out depends a lot on context - it's a lot easier to do good if for example you're surrounded by others who are doing the same (like in the effective altruism community!).

@jeffumbro What are the charities that your friends raise money for? I'd encourage them to raise for GiveWell recommended charities like Against Malaria Foundation, Deworm the World, Schistosomiasis Control Initiative or GiveDirectly.

@russfrushtick Derek Parfit leaps to mind. He's one of the most influential moral philosophers of the twentieth century. In his book Reasons and Persons he made a series of dazzling contributions: arguing that there's not really such a thing as continued personhood over time, only varying degrees of psychological continuity; and arguing that it's crucially morally important to prevent the extinction of the human race, because of the tremendous numbers of people who would never get a chance to exist if we do go extinct. In terms of someone who combines academia with public impact, Peter Singer has (unsurprisingly) been an enduring inspiration for me. He got me into philosophy, convinced me of the importance of animal welfare and global poverty, and has done the same for many others. For someone still producing outstanding novel research now, I'd say Nick Bostrom, who's been doing research on how we should handle (whenever we achieve it) the development of human-level artificial general intelligence. Even if you don't agree with his conclusions, it's certainly incredibly important work.

@stedmanblake Thanks! I agree - Y Combinator has a massive impact by making other companies big and successful. We at 80,000 Hours hope to have a massive impact by transforming the careers of other people in ways that radically benefit the world. It's been an amazing experience being part of YC.