Literally an entire “”””philosophy””” and vision of morality that is based on “everything rich techbros want to do is morally correct”.

Shout out to “more everything forever”, been enjoying laughing at these freaks as I read the book

    • Owl [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      looking for a new effective altruism

      ask the charity manager if their effective altruism is bug nets or imaginary robots

      she doesn’t understand

      pull out illustrated diagram explaining what is bug nets and what is imaginary robots

      she laughs and says “it’s a good effective altruism sir”

      donate

      it’s imaginary robots

    • gay_king_prince_charles [she/her, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Even then, strict utilitarianism leads to some strange conclusions that feel wrong but are difficult to articulate why. On average, a $5,000 donation to the Malaria Consurtium saves someone’s life[1] (although there is some variance). I haven’t seen much doubt surrounding this number and it seems reasonable to me. However, if you want to optimize for total lives saved and someone were to give you a job as a hitman that paid a $10,000 donation to the Malaria Consurtium per kill, the utilitarian/effective altruisti would argue that it is immoral not to take the job, because one fewer person (on average) dies if you decide not to murder a random person for money. The reasoning makes perfect sense, but still feels so obviously wrong.


      1. https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/seasonal-malaria-chemoprevention ↩︎