{"items": [{"author": "Paul", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/912364631842?comment_id=912367096902", "anchor": "fb-912367096902", "service": "fb", "text": "So it sounds like when you offer to make a counterfactual donation, you should have specific spending on yourself in mind you will make iff you don't make the donation? Is it then cheating if, after making the donation, you decide to buy the thing anyway?", "timestamp": "1511539518"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/912364631842?comment_id=912367096902&reply_comment_id=912425444972", "anchor": "fb-912367096902_912425444972", "service": "fb", "text": "→ This kind of reasoning is hard! Let's say I offer a counterfactual $50 donation to the charity of your choice if you try not eating meat for a week. If I have a donation budget that's clear: the money comes from my self spending portion and doesn't require having a specific other use in mind.
If I don't have one, though, then picking something I definitely wouldn't normally do works. But if I later found myself doing it, I guess it suggests my model of what I would do in the future was pretty off? And that my ability to offer counterfactually valid moral trades is limited?", "timestamp": "1511551346"}, {"author": "Kelsey", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/912364631842?comment_id=912446442892", "anchor": "fb-912446442892", "service": "fb", "text": "I definitely would only use counterfactual to mean the last two, except if, for example, I typically donate to another EA charity and specify \"instead of donating to [other EA charity]\" when negotiating the counterfactual donation. I can imagine that coming up - someone who thinks MIRI is a waste of money might feel the same about 'the money is moved from MIRI to AMF' as 'the money is moved from personal spending to AMF'.", "timestamp": "1511554706"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118273920476267337216", "anchor": "gp-1511570098068", "service": "gp", "text": "I think I'd frame the deal differently if I were offering it, to make it more clear: I'm going to give $50 to a charity of my choice, but if you do a thing, then I'll give it to a charity of your choice instead. Or, if I want to limit your choice to the AMF: I'm going to give $50 to one of these ten organizations, one of which is the AMF, and if you do a thing, I'll give it to the AMF, otherwise I'll give it to one of the others.\n
\n
\n...or, I suppose, \"I'll light it on fire\", or \"I'll take my sweetie out to dinner\", or whatever -- but making it explicit up front what you'll do if the person doesn't take your offer seems to me to make it clear what will happen if they don't -- clear both to you and to them.", "timestamp": 1511570098}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1511578211157", "service": "gp", "text": "@Josh\n Making it explicit what you will do otherwise avoids a lot of arguing about what counterfactual does/should mean. Maybe that's good enough, and we should just avoid the jargon here.", "timestamp": 1511578211}, {"author": "Caleb", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/912364631842?comment_id=912717070552", "anchor": "fb-912717070552", "service": "fb", "text": "I suspect that value being placed on \"counterfactual\" donations places perverse incentives on the community, as it punishes those who donate more/spend more \"optimally\" with less \"slack\" for counterfactual donations (disclaimer: I identify with this description). I propose that rather than counterfactual donations, it is credit for donations (in the vein of the certificates of impact) that should be traded (with each dollar of donation able to be taken credit of by only one person).", "timestamp": "1511653299"}, {"author": "Pinkie", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/912364631842?comment_id=912880552932", "anchor": "fb-912880552932", "service": "fb", "text": "Does this mean I could tell my professor I'll donate $50 to their research if they give me an A? Asking for a friend...", "timestamp": "1511747988"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/912364631842?comment_id=912880552932&reply_comment_id=912885947122", "anchor": "fb-912880552932_912885947122", "service": "fb", "text": "→ At least your professor doesn't have to worry whether your offer is counterfactually legitimate!", "timestamp": "1511750274"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/912364631842?comment_id=913032179072", "anchor": "fb-913032179072", "service": "fb", "text": "My opinion: counterfactuals like this are almost never valid, and there's no particular reason they should be. You, as an effective altruist, should probably donate as though they don't exist. In the vast majority of cases, the person/organization plans to donate that much and expects the condition will be met. If it is not met, they will probably still donate.
That's a problem if you're double-valuing your own contribution for causing theirs, but as long as you're only valuing your own contribution for its own impact, it's fine. Deceptive, perhaps, but it's mainly a marketing trick. Others who do less rational analysis of this stuff may be more likely to donate if they FEEL like their donation is going farther, which allows the person offering the counterfactual to increase their real impact. People responding to the counterfactual are not multiplying their impact, but they are still impacting the organization with their money.
I tend to think that most people are not specifically budgeting out how much they can give to charity in a year. They may have a loose sense of what's too much, or that they haven't been giving enough, but the annual dollar amount is flexible to the right emotional appeal or tragic event. If you think you're dealing with people who have fixed charity budgets, then neither party in the above situation can claim they're multiplying their impact. Maybe you caught someone at the right time to get them to give $100 to your organization, but it's $100 less that will go to some other (possibly equally worthy) organization this year.", "timestamp": "1511835027"}]}