Actually, I think it makes perfect sense. If you use money in the best way you can think of—or other people can think of—to help people, you should on average expect to help people more than if you use money for something else in the hopes that one of its side-effects will be to help people. If you disagree, I think the onus is on you to provide an example of why that would not be the case. (And I would prefer a modern example, not one about a company dumping toxic waste in the river a hundred years ago and you maybe being able to sway it with large enough investments, since I’m not aware of any similar things occurring currently.)
I don’t mean to be confrontational, but I’m really having trouble thinking of any reason when this would not be the case (at least in the short- and medium-terms, as mentioned).
The positive consequences of investing $1 in a particular company don’t have to be anywhere close to as good as the positive consequences of donating $1 in order for the investment to be more cost effective, because investments generate returns, so the cost of changing your investment behavior is no where near the amount you spend on the investments. For example, if investing in company A or company B has the same expected payoff for you, but investing in company A instead of B has positive externalities, then you can do good for free by investing in A instead of choosing one randomly. I don’t have any actual examples where I believe this to be the case. I was criticizing your argument, not your conclusion, which BenGilbert has defended fairly persuasively with other arguments.
Actually, I think it makes perfect sense. If you use money in the best way you can think of—or other people can think of—to help people, you should on average expect to help people more than if you use money for something else in the hopes that one of its side-effects will be to help people. If you disagree, I think the onus is on you to provide an example of why that would not be the case. (And I would prefer a modern example, not one about a company dumping toxic waste in the river a hundred years ago and you maybe being able to sway it with large enough investments, since I’m not aware of any similar things occurring currently.)
I don’t mean to be confrontational, but I’m really having trouble thinking of any reason when this would not be the case (at least in the short- and medium-terms, as mentioned).
The positive consequences of investing $1 in a particular company don’t have to be anywhere close to as good as the positive consequences of donating $1 in order for the investment to be more cost effective, because investments generate returns, so the cost of changing your investment behavior is no where near the amount you spend on the investments. For example, if investing in company A or company B has the same expected payoff for you, but investing in company A instead of B has positive externalities, then you can do good for free by investing in A instead of choosing one randomly. I don’t have any actual examples where I believe this to be the case. I was criticizing your argument, not your conclusion, which BenGilbert has defended fairly persuasively with other arguments.