I think it's good for a government to prioritize, or at least treat equally, helping disabled adults find jobs over helping abled adults find jobs, even though the former is more resource-intensive than the latter, for two reasons.
First, the very fact that the former is more resource-intensive than the latter means that the former is less likely to succeed without government help, whereas the latter is more likely to succeed without government help.
Second, disabled people tend to get the short end of the stick elsewhere in life, so it's proper to help balance that out with some affirmative action. (A sad person getting a job is better than a happy person getting a job - at least, I think so.) Part of why we have the ADA, actually.
I agree with you completely, and yet I also sympathize with him.
I agree with the basic, kindergarten ethics underlying effective altruism. Every person has equal worth, and so we should care about everyone, and find the best way to help as many people as possible as much as possible. But I also believe something else on a gut level, even if I can't rationalize it or justify it. I believe that I'm entitled to a more-or-less Middle Class American Lifestyle. That's why I only give 10% of my money to Givewell instead of 80-90% (as I know, in my heart, I ought to). That's why I work something like 40-50 hours a week in a job I like, instead of 80 hours a week in a job that makes as much money as possible or contributes as much as possible to helping people in extreme poverty.
Since I'm a relatively high income professional, my entitlement is about rationalizing why I'm not more giving. And so I cling to the narratives that justify that type of entitlement: I need to give in a way that's personally sustainable, I get to enjoy my life too, I'm already doing more than most people.
If I were a person who lived in a high-income country but couldn't earn enough money to have a basically middle-class standard of living, I'm sure I'd feel the same entitlement I do now. And I'm sure I'd believe the narratives that justified that entitlement: that we ought to care for our own first. That we should build a model society for people in poor countries to emulate. That, by virtue of my nationality, I deserve my piece of a rightful inheritance. And I can imagine feeling pained by people skipping over my needs to help needier people without those specific claims to entitlement the same way I can imagine feeling pained if someone took another 70% of my paycheck and gave it to Givewell.
I agree with everything you're saying here, but reading the original piece I thought the main point he was making was that, like, QALYs are an ableist measurement and shouldn't be used to prioritize healthcare access. Which...seems right too? At least in a political environment where "defund the US military" has basically no political backing but "defund medicaid by taking away care from disabled people" is, like, the political position of most US states
Pointing out that helping people in the developing world includes helping people with disabilities in the developing world definitely defangs a big part of Ne'eman's argument. BUT I think he makes a point which is more interesting: the more successfully utilitarian effective altruism becomes (which I take to be one of the goals of the movement) the more likely it is to take counter-intuitive positions on issues of justice, because sometimes local justice will trade off against global utility. This threatens the political viability of the movement, because not only are people not impartial, but utilitarian-style impartiality strikes most people as deranged. If effective altruism wants to maximize its reach, I think it should care about political viability. One way they could secure it is by coming up with an account which gives local justice special weight. I think they could do this in a fairly internally consistent way by saying something like "EA practice promises maximal utility, stable democracies are the most fertile ground for EA practice, this stability requires consistent maintenance of local justice, therefore consistent maintenance of local justice is required for maximal utility."
What *is* the difference between "the difference between Marin and Oakland" and "the difference between Oakland and Africa"? I think the dominance of the nation-state has shaped our moral emotions in a way that makes itself the natural unit of care in discourse, within which parochialism is frowned upon but outside of which it is a matter of course.
Like, we intuitively know that any political platform that actually prioritizes the people most in need on Earth would be instantly dead in the water, so it doesn't really even enter our heads. Previous expansions of the circle of concern - like deciding black people or women are equal - are relatively simple (while certainly not easy!) to incorporate into the political system by granting them equal citizenship and voting rights. That's literally impossible to do for the malaria-plagued africans without doing away with the entire political structure.
It seems we're so used to that kind of thinking that we still apply it intuitively in our private charity, where such considerations no longer apply.
*"we" and "our" used here meaning Americans in general, not me or ozy or the readers of this blog.
I actually do agree with his critique of E.A.‘a denial of any principle of local responsibility; however, that critique doesn’t actually support his main argument about disability rights, since as you point out, there are more disabled people in the developing world than in the United States. I don’t think he’s arguing with real conviction there; I think he’s just grasping for some way to not base his argument entirely on Singer.
I think it's good for a government to prioritize, or at least treat equally, helping disabled adults find jobs over helping abled adults find jobs, even though the former is more resource-intensive than the latter, for two reasons.
First, the very fact that the former is more resource-intensive than the latter means that the former is less likely to succeed without government help, whereas the latter is more likely to succeed without government help.
Second, disabled people tend to get the short end of the stick elsewhere in life, so it's proper to help balance that out with some affirmative action. (A sad person getting a job is better than a happy person getting a job - at least, I think so.) Part of why we have the ADA, actually.
I agree with you completely, and yet I also sympathize with him.
I agree with the basic, kindergarten ethics underlying effective altruism. Every person has equal worth, and so we should care about everyone, and find the best way to help as many people as possible as much as possible. But I also believe something else on a gut level, even if I can't rationalize it or justify it. I believe that I'm entitled to a more-or-less Middle Class American Lifestyle. That's why I only give 10% of my money to Givewell instead of 80-90% (as I know, in my heart, I ought to). That's why I work something like 40-50 hours a week in a job I like, instead of 80 hours a week in a job that makes as much money as possible or contributes as much as possible to helping people in extreme poverty.
Since I'm a relatively high income professional, my entitlement is about rationalizing why I'm not more giving. And so I cling to the narratives that justify that type of entitlement: I need to give in a way that's personally sustainable, I get to enjoy my life too, I'm already doing more than most people.
If I were a person who lived in a high-income country but couldn't earn enough money to have a basically middle-class standard of living, I'm sure I'd feel the same entitlement I do now. And I'm sure I'd believe the narratives that justified that entitlement: that we ought to care for our own first. That we should build a model society for people in poor countries to emulate. That, by virtue of my nationality, I deserve my piece of a rightful inheritance. And I can imagine feeling pained by people skipping over my needs to help needier people without those specific claims to entitlement the same way I can imagine feeling pained if someone took another 70% of my paycheck and gave it to Givewell.
I agree with everything you're saying here, but reading the original piece I thought the main point he was making was that, like, QALYs are an ableist measurement and shouldn't be used to prioritize healthcare access. Which...seems right too? At least in a political environment where "defund the US military" has basically no political backing but "defund medicaid by taking away care from disabled people" is, like, the political position of most US states
Crazy idea: Start an EA co-working space or group house in Marin County just to get that sweet, sweet Buck Trust money.
Pointing out that helping people in the developing world includes helping people with disabilities in the developing world definitely defangs a big part of Ne'eman's argument. BUT I think he makes a point which is more interesting: the more successfully utilitarian effective altruism becomes (which I take to be one of the goals of the movement) the more likely it is to take counter-intuitive positions on issues of justice, because sometimes local justice will trade off against global utility. This threatens the political viability of the movement, because not only are people not impartial, but utilitarian-style impartiality strikes most people as deranged. If effective altruism wants to maximize its reach, I think it should care about political viability. One way they could secure it is by coming up with an account which gives local justice special weight. I think they could do this in a fairly internally consistent way by saying something like "EA practice promises maximal utility, stable democracies are the most fertile ground for EA practice, this stability requires consistent maintenance of local justice, therefore consistent maintenance of local justice is required for maximal utility."
What *is* the difference between "the difference between Marin and Oakland" and "the difference between Oakland and Africa"? I think the dominance of the nation-state has shaped our moral emotions in a way that makes itself the natural unit of care in discourse, within which parochialism is frowned upon but outside of which it is a matter of course.
Like, we intuitively know that any political platform that actually prioritizes the people most in need on Earth would be instantly dead in the water, so it doesn't really even enter our heads. Previous expansions of the circle of concern - like deciding black people or women are equal - are relatively simple (while certainly not easy!) to incorporate into the political system by granting them equal citizenship and voting rights. That's literally impossible to do for the malaria-plagued africans without doing away with the entire political structure.
It seems we're so used to that kind of thinking that we still apply it intuitively in our private charity, where such considerations no longer apply.
*"we" and "our" used here meaning Americans in general, not me or ozy or the readers of this blog.
I actually do agree with his critique of E.A.‘a denial of any principle of local responsibility; however, that critique doesn’t actually support his main argument about disability rights, since as you point out, there are more disabled people in the developing world than in the United States. I don’t think he’s arguing with real conviction there; I think he’s just grasping for some way to not base his argument entirely on Singer.