Pet peeve: For posts relevant to the US only, state it. Preferably in the title.
(1) I'm also a bit confused about the difference between charitable projects and hosted funds. First, I thought it means it's not possible to donate to funds via GWWC website, but after reading it again, I interpreted it as a change happening rather back-end and won't impact recommendations. Instead, it would be a change in the oversight GWWC promises for the funds. Have I understood it correctly?
I just found that Sebastian Schwiecker had written a blog post on the same topic.
Because of
I was hoping there were good EA blog posts on this topic, but after spending a while with EA Forum search and Google I didn't find any.
... I'm leaving this link here :) https://effektiv-spenden.org/blog/wie-viel-soll-ich-spenden/
Fair enough! Thanks for sharing this perspective as well. I guess that a rights-based animal charity evaluator would focus more on making change through legislation and litigation, failing to notice other approaches to improve animal welfare. However, there could be something that the current approach of EA orgs is missing more easily, which the rights-based lens would include.
So, to summarize:
- Some animal rights activists have impractical attitudes (for creating change effectively, such as not using non-violent communication) and alienating attitudes towards non-rights-based interventions to improve animal welfare. You find value in promoting other approaches than that.
- You find good arguments for welfarist tradition.
- On the other hand, being against animal rights doesn't cling right and talking for animal rights can be a good shortcut.
- You believe there is an overlap with welfarist and rights-based ethical theories that should be appreciated.
Did I understand you right?
I strongly agree with this! Before I had a stable income, I'd set aside 1€ a month to a separate bank account for charity. Usually, I'd wait a year or more to donate the accumulated money somewhere. (For context, I'm from Northern Europe.)