William MacAskill: preference

Transcript context

…Of all the inefficient things, which is the one you love most? Of all the inefficient things? There are some amazing examples of inefficient charities that I love, in the sense that they give me pleasure to think about. One of my favorites is a charity called ScotsCare, which was set up in the early 17th century. It’s called the Charity for Scots in London, and it’s dedicated to help Scottish people in poverty in London. You might think that’s a pretty strange aim, but it made more sense when the charity was set up in the early 17th century. There was just recently the personal union of England and Scotland. There was migration from Scotland to London, so Scottish people were poor immigrants. It made sense for it to be a charity. Four hundred years on, perhaps it doesn’t make quite as much sense. I like it partly — especially given that London is pretty affluent, especially compared to many areas of Scotland — I like it as an example of what gets called the “dead hand problem” in philanthropy, where the founding of nonprofits can have a very specific mission, and that mission can become increasingly absurd over time. I think it’s a good and heartening lesson for people who are trying to do good, looking into the future, too. You want to have aims that can be sufficiently flexible that, as the environment or things change, they still keep making sense. Does liking the inefficient mean that you are a pluralist and not a utilitarian?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.