• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • What should "counterfactual donation" mean?

    November 24th, 2017
    giving  [html]
    Sometimes people will describe a donation as "counterfactually valid" or just "counterfactual". For example, you might offer to donate a counterfactual dollar for every push-up your team does. [1] The high level interpretation is that you're doing something you wouldn't have done otherwise. For example, if you hire a mason to repoint your wall it's definitely not something that would have just done on their own, while when charities offer donation matching your donation doesn't generally affect how much of the matching funds the charity receives. The former is fully counterfactually valid while the latter isn't counterfactually valid at all.

    Say I offer to make a counterfactual donation of $50 to the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) if you do a thing; which of the following are ok for me to do if you don't?

    1. Donate $50 to the AMF.
    2. Donate $49 to the AMF.
    3. Donate $50 to the AMF tomorrow.
    4. Donate $50 to another long-lasting insecticide treated anti-malaria net distribution charity.
    5. Donate $50 to another of GiveWell's top charities.
    6. Donate $50 to another group that is commonly supported by EAs.
    7. Donate an extra $50 to the AMF next year.
    8. Donate an extra $50 to the AMF next year, not because of intentional dishonesty, but just because not having given $50 this year I happen to have more money available next year when it comes time for me to figure out how much to donate and at that point I still think the AMF is a good choice.
    9. Spend an extra $50 on myself (go out to eat when I wouldn't otherwise, etc).
    10. Light a $50 bill on fire. [2]

    The first example is exactly what counterfactual doesn't mean here: I'm just going ahead and doing my half of the deal whether you do your half or not. The last example is pretty clearly counterfactual. Which of the ones in between are ok?

    I would draw the line as allowing only the last two. The goal of clarifying that something is counterfactual is to allow the other person to reason as if they're causing the thing to happen. On the other hand, maybe that's an unreasonably high barrier, and if we decide that's what "counterfactual" means no one will be able to use the term for anything, so we should adopt something weaker?


    [1] This is philosphy-inspired EA-jargon, and as jargon I'm mixed on it but I think it's helpful to think about what we've been using it to mean and what it should mean.

    [2] We could add a final one here, something like I donate $50 to a malaria promotion organization, but that's extortion. (For some reason this is commonly referred to as 'blackmail', even though it doesn't involve threats to reveal information.)

    Comment via: google plus, facebook

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    The Limit of Circles in the Suburbs

    In dense urban cores, it’s valuable to run circular rail lines. They connect dense near-center neighborhoods to one another without going through the more congested center, and help make transferring between parallel lines more efficient, again through av…

    via Pedestrian Observations September 6, 2020

    Collections: Bread, How Did They Make It? Addendum: Rice!

    As an addendum on to our four-part look at the general structures of the farming of cereal grains (I, II, III, IV) this post is going to briefly discuss some of the key ways that the structures of rice farming differ from the structures of wheat and barle…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry September 4, 2020

    Notes on “Anthropology of Childhood” by David Lancy

    I read David Lancy’s “The Anthropology of Childhood: Cherubs, Chattel, and Changelings” and highlighted some passages. A lot of passages, it turns out. [content note: discussion of abortion and infanticide, including infanticide of children with disabilit…

    via The whole sky August 27, 2020

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact