SoGive's moral weights -- please take part!

post by Sanjay · 2021-04-05T22:47:55.223Z · EA · GW · 2 comments

Contents

  Contents
  Motivation: how moral weights work supports SoGive’s charity ratings
  Our approach so far
  Our plans for next steps
  How you can help
None
2 comments

Contents

Motivation: how moral weights work supports SoGive’s charity ratings

SoGive performs charity analysis on a broad range of charities. Our output is an easy-to-understand rating (e.g. “Gold” or “Silver”). We aim to cover a sufficiently large number of charities that if you heard the name of a charity you could consult SoGive and have a good chance that SoGive has a write-up.

Historically we simply compared all charities to the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF). We believed then (and believe now) that this is a legitimate, philosophically well-founded comparison. Any decision to donate to charity X is also (implicitly) a decision *not* to donate to AMF (as well as being a decision not to spend it on anything else).

However this approach suffered from a number of issues.

  1. Lots of people who had not thought deeply about these issues felt that it was invalid to compare (e.g.) a charity helping homeless people in Coventry with AMF’s malaria net distributions
    1. This is problematic because SoGive’s key insight was being lost -- the whole point is that SoGive provides the data to let donors move on from “holidays for veterans vs malaria nets” to “ONE holiday for a veteran vs TWO lives saved” or “THREE homeless people helped vs SEVENTY years of depression averted”.
    2. While this quantification adds valuable extra information, this insight was being lost for those who thought that comparing everything to AMF was us being overly simplistic
  2. Lots of subtle moral assumptions were being kept implicit, and making those explicit is valuable
    1. Frequently the differences in cost-effectiveness were so substantial that almost any reasonable set of moral values would reach the same conclusion. However this was not always the case. For example, reasonable people have wildly differing opinions about the moral value that animals have.
  3. The persistent references to AMF were problematic
    1. If we changed our mind about AMF being a charity which meets the standard to be rated Gold, we would have a lot of work to update our analysis
    2. It made us look like a shill for AMF

Our approach so far

Our plans for next steps

How you can help

Please take the survey! [EDIT: the survey is now closed; thank you to those who took part]

Ideally, we would like thoughtful, considered responses, and are happy for participants to create a separate google doc and link to it if there’s not enough space in the survey to set out their reasoning.

2 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by saulius · 2021-04-06T09:03:44.306Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

I feel it was valuable to me to think about the questions in the survey, made me reconnect a bit with why I became an altruist in the first place. There seem to be some issues in the second survey though. The question with button seven and button eight has some typos (button seven is referred to as button A and then the question asks to compare button seven to button A). And then after I answered a question about education and higher income, I just see a blank screen, and I'm not sure if my answers were recorded.

Replies from: Sanjay
comment by Sanjay · 2021-04-06T21:49:59.184Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

Thanks very much for pointing out that error -- now corrected. I've looked at the answers which have been recorded, and they include an answer which includes comments similar to the comment you made here, so I think it's been recorded. Thank you very much!