• Patches@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    In short, effective altruism is commonly viewed as being about the moral obligation to donate as much money as possible to evidence-backed global poverty charities, or other measurable ways of making a short-term impact.

    Just be the philanthropist that your broke ass wants to be.

    Work 120 hours a week so you can receive 15% of the value you generate as a paycheck. Then take the 75% you receive from that after the tax man and donate it to a charity. It’s so simple.

    You want to be a better human? Just work more, and then donate more.

    • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Except it’s worse than that. The argument goes, if I could donate $1m right now to a charity, or invest that money in subprime mortgages for a year and donate $5m next year, plus keep a little bit of that profit to live on, obviously the optimal course of action is to be a capitalist and not donate right now.

      Project this rationalization forward indefinitely and you get all the benefits of the 1% lifestyle while retaining the ability to feel morally superior to everyone else not in your little trust fund cult

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not to say that argument is flawless. You can give a starving child 5 meals today, or 500 meals in a year - except in a year, he’s starved and can’t eat a single one.

        It basically ties in with “Justice delayed is justice denied”.