Also, they never, btw, talk about a fair share of lives saved but of funding provided, and while of course those things are closely connected they are not intensionally equivalent and there is an enormous difference between “we favour an approach that can be summarized as ‘donors consider the landscape of donors and try to estimate their share of the funding gap, and give that much’” and “it would be bad if anyone saved more than their fair share of lives”.
In the context of a discussion about how much money to give to a specified set of nonprofits, where no other decisions are being discussed other than how to decide how much money to give, what is the difference?
It’s a bit like the difference between “Ben thinks Gareth is giving too much money to the Against Malaria Foundation” and “Ben thinks Gareth isn’t letting enough babies die of malaria”, in the context of a discussion about how individuals should allocate their money.
In the context of a discussion about how much money to give to a specified set of nonprofits, where no other decisions are being discussed other than how to decide how much money to give, what is the difference?
It’s a bit like the difference between “Ben thinks Gareth is giving too much money to the Against Malaria Foundation” and “Ben thinks Gareth isn’t letting enough babies die of malaria”, in the context of a discussion about how individuals should allocate their money.