Was reviewing this for making social media content for my EA University Group and I have a potentially stupid question about the equality principle. If we collectively decide to pick up the most 'objectively' important-tractable-neglected spheres of impact, what guarantee is there that the outcome is ultimately better than if we 'selfishly' decided to contribute to those of our personal interest (such as the leukemia example or things involving close relatives, for instance)?
Something's telling me that at the end of the day, the 'invisible hand' of altruism will eventually allocate 'equally' rather than having a narrative that pushes people towards certain directions (though I know this is probably unquantifiable empirically). I just tend to think that having a certain bias is not only okay, but necessary, as we may have personal responsibility over certain spheres rather than others and hence totally impartiality would lack effectivity in the super-long-run.
Was reviewing this for making social media content for my EA University Group and I have a potentially stupid question about the equality principle. If we collectively decide to pick up the most 'objectively' important-tractable-neglected spheres of impact, what guarantee is there that the outcome is ultimately better than if we 'selfishly' decided to contribute to those of our personal interest (such as the leukemia example or things involving close relatives, for instance)?
Something's telling me that at the end of the day, the 'invisible hand' of altruism will eventually allocate 'equally' rather than having a narrative that pushes people towards certain directions (though I know this is probably unquantifiable empirically). I just tend to think that having a certain bias is not only okay, but necessary, as we may have personal responsibility over certain spheres rather than others and hence totally impartiality would lack effectivity in the super-long-run.
What do you guys think?