Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

So you advocate doing things you find morally objectionable while telling yourself that it is the right thing to do because you can give the money away afterwards? That sounds insane to me.

I think it's morally objectionable to waste a rare opportunity when one could just as easily channel that opportunity towards the benefits of others.

This really does not compute for me, so it's bad to stop ruining people's lives if in ruining their lives you could help other people's lives? What if the people addicted and raging over Flappy Bird are the same ones that you think should be helped?

I mean let's just think about it here. Is Flappy Bird really ruining people's lives? Flappy Bird? Really?

You're conflating two acts: he has produced a game, and being addicted to games ruins some people's lives. But if he withdraws his game, their lives don't suddenly get un-ruined. They just switch to some other game.

Basically, you're suggesting that an equilibrium of (1 person-hour stolen by addiction : 1 person-hour of ad impressions given to charity) should be replaced with (1 person-hour stolen by addiction [just to some other game] : 0 person-hours of ad impressions given to charity). Note that there is no "0 person-hours stolen by addiction" option.

Yeah this is basically like drug dealers saying I give all the money to charity.

Actually yes: a casino run by a cult of effective altruists would probably do more for the world than most charities.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact