tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post1546170209445373399..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Puzzling Conditional ObligationsRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-70857018196871019852021-10-19T18:44:27.532-04:002021-10-19T18:44:27.532-04:00Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to...Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give<br /><br />"Earning to give involves deliberately pursuing a high-earning career for the purpose of donating a significant portion of earned income, typically because of a desire to do effective altruism. Advocates of earning to give contend that maximizing the amount one can donate to charity is an important consideration for individuals when deciding what career to pursue"Ernie Bornheimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09644143290298721906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-90610455705119365222021-10-18T19:50:50.738-04:002021-10-18T19:50:50.738-04:00Hi Richard,
My two cents:
(1) I think people i...Hi Richard, <br /><br />My two cents: <br /><br />(1) I think people in general would not see the described behavior as someone who sacrifices his preferred career (artist) in order to give more to charity, but someone who wants to become rich just to be better off (which I think is not wrong, but it's a different motivation). A reason for this is that the person in the scenario donates just 1%, which would seem unusual if the goal of becoming rich is in order to give more to charity: if that's the goal, one would think the person in question would want to give a lot more, not just 1%. <br /><br /><br />(2) I'm not familiar with the claims that there is such obligation, but I find them puzzling. I would say there is an obligation not to do that!<br /><br />In more detail: While it depends on the quality of the different schools and other factors, at least in most cases I'm familiar with the probable outcome of sending their kids to public school instead of a much better private school will be that their children will learn less and worse than they otherwise would, and be less knowledgeable (and I'm not sure if less intelligent, due to lesser intellectual stimuli when young). I would say they have an obligation to give their children a better education, so sending them to public school is not only not obligatory, but impermissible - except, of course, if public school is just as good or they hire private tutors, etc., to compensate; all of that is also alright. <br /><br />Additionally, their children will be able to contribute more to society (not the main reason for the parents' obligation, though) if they learn more and better. Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-25207138749627052512021-10-13T20:39:37.327-04:002021-10-13T20:39:37.327-04:00I'm curious why you seem to favor the route of...I'm curious why you seem to favor the route of treating them as unconditional positive obligations to get into a position where the conditional obligation obtains and not the alternative you propose where the obligation is a negative one; the latter seems more appealing to me. Regardless, case 1 seems more about the fraction of income donated rather than about the absolute amount donated (and thus not about actual vs. potential incomes).RChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08038859031547788616noreply@blogger.com