Dario donation row: refusing to quantify moral weights hides your real values
AaronBergman18 · x · 2026-11-08
A debate sparked by Dario's charitable giving: Nathan Lazarus argues the controversy wasn't about the preference itself but about putting numbers on arbitrary moral weights—yet if you donate to a US charity saving 1 life per $1M, you implicitly value an American life 250x a sub-Saharan malaria life. RYChappell goes further: resisting mathematization lets people dodge seeing their moral weights reflected back, functionally meaning "hide your values and let us hide ours"—a bad-faith way of doing ethics.
Related event: Dario's Quantified Moral Weights Spark EA Ethics Debate(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- When machines do everything else, relationships are what's left for humans — ZeroStateReflex · 2026-11-09
- Onggi in 2039: running a kimchi-jar shop in the post-Acceleration economy — NathanpmYoung · 2026-11-09
- AI speeds up research by at least 1.4x, says Wildeford, citing private METR evidence — peterwildeford · 2026-11-09
- AI has broken science's main evaluation proxy, argues computational biologist — anshulkundaje · 2026-11-09
- Learning is compression: a long-form essay on manifold hypothesis and why intelligence is possible at all — burny_tech · 2026-11-09
- 'AI democratizes Jevons paradox itself': efficiency fuels even more usage — cocktailpeanut · 2026-11-09