re: #4: Why must the malaria prevention money come out of your cryonics fund and not your frivolous expense fund? Unless you’re currently donating all of your expendable income, it doesn’t seem like you signing up for cryonics need have any impact on malaria prevention.
I think the moral difference is between Near and Far funds rather than between frivolous expenses and other things.
The Near Fund would be for things you obviously need and/or enjoy, a subset of which is frivolous expenses. These are the funds that you concretely feel the lack of. Food, toys, rent, medicine, etc.
the Far fund is things that seem like a good idea but need more effort and moral commitment to actually act on. Charity, Cryonics, Investing, Education etc. are far mode. These are funds beyond your necessities, that you spend based on complicated decisions about long-term impacts.
Because of how we think and feel about the impacts of these various concerns on our daily happiness etc, it’s much more reasonable to talk about trading off cryonics vs charity than charity vs your daily latte.
I think the moral difference is between Near and Far funds rather than between frivolous expenses and other things.
Seems like it might be a good explanation of why so many people come up with this objection. I can’t tell if you think this is a bug or a feature; I think it’s a bug.
It doesn’t matter what expense account you’re taking it from—you can always compare two things and say, which is morally correct? If it’s more moral to give to malaria than purchase cryogenics, then you shouldn’t purchase cryogenics and instead give to malaria. If it’s more moral to give to purchase cryogenics instead of making frivolous expenses, then you should purchase cryogenics.
(Also, I don’t know about you, but my frivolous expense fund isn’t nearly big enough to eradicate malaria, much less purchase cryogenics afterward.)
The point is, you should never find yourself in a state where you have enough excess income after your malaria prevention donations but won’t sign up for cryonics because malaria prevention is more important to you.
EDIT: The real point is more that comparing with malaria prevention could be a dodge—you can make any purchase you want look bad via that comparison, so you need to do it consistently or you’re using it to selectively denigrate some ways of spending money.
re: #4: Why must the malaria prevention money come out of your cryonics fund and not your frivolous expense fund? Unless you’re currently donating all of your expendable income, it doesn’t seem like you signing up for cryonics need have any impact on malaria prevention.
I think the moral difference is between Near and Far funds rather than between frivolous expenses and other things.
The Near Fund would be for things you obviously need and/or enjoy, a subset of which is frivolous expenses. These are the funds that you concretely feel the lack of. Food, toys, rent, medicine, etc.
the Far fund is things that seem like a good idea but need more effort and moral commitment to actually act on. Charity, Cryonics, Investing, Education etc. are far mode. These are funds beyond your necessities, that you spend based on complicated decisions about long-term impacts.
Because of how we think and feel about the impacts of these various concerns on our daily happiness etc, it’s much more reasonable to talk about trading off cryonics vs charity than charity vs your daily latte.
Seems like it might be a good explanation of why so many people come up with this objection. I can’t tell if you think this is a bug or a feature; I think it’s a bug.
It doesn’t matter what expense account you’re taking it from—you can always compare two things and say, which is morally correct? If it’s more moral to give to malaria than purchase cryogenics, then you shouldn’t purchase cryogenics and instead give to malaria. If it’s more moral to give to purchase cryogenics instead of making frivolous expenses, then you should purchase cryogenics.
(Also, I don’t know about you, but my frivolous expense fund isn’t nearly big enough to eradicate malaria, much less purchase cryogenics afterward.)
The point is, you should never find yourself in a state where you have enough excess income after your malaria prevention donations but won’t sign up for cryonics because malaria prevention is more important to you.
EDIT: The real point is more that comparing with malaria prevention could be a dodge—you can make any purchase you want look bad via that comparison, so you need to do it consistently or you’re using it to selectively denigrate some ways of spending money.