"They should have been digging ditches in Africa or volunteering at their local soup kitchen or whatever."
No, what they should have done is written their books, then donated a large fraction of the money they earned from writing them. If you're that good of an author (keeping in mind that 99.99% of people aren't), you can help the world a lot more that way than by volunteering at soup kitchens.
"It's a good thing not everything felt as you did or the world would be pretty bleak indeed."
If everyone felt as Eliezer did- that it was better to spend at least some effort doing what the world needed most, rather than what happened to feel good- then maybe we would not have hundreds of millions of people in constant danger of starvation.
If everyone felt as Eliezer did- that it was better to spend at least some effort doing what the world needed most, rather than what happened to feel good- then maybe we would not have hundreds of millions of people in constant danger of starvation.
I sincerely doubt it. What has charity really done for starvation and poverty? There's only one thing that has ultimately had a big, lasting effect on those things: capitalism. I'm sure many will disagree, but I'd like to see the evidence that giving $1m to developing economies has more effect than investing $1m in businesses in those economies that can then grow and hire more workers.
I don't presently see the case for charity, but I'd like to see more data on the subject.
Then substitute "invested" for "donated". Or, hell, "invested in figuring out how best to help developing countries" (like http://www.givewell.net/). The stereotypical ways to help people do tend to suck (lending the original quote much of its plausibility), but there are other options.
But that's my point: they're not the same thing. The primary motivation for an investment is what I get out of it. If it helps other people, that's great, but I'm after a great return. And the reality is that this self-motivated economic system has done more to help the less fortunate that any direct action designed to help them.
No, what they should have done is written their books, then donated a large fraction of the money they earned from writing them. If you're that good of an author (keeping in mind that 99.99% of people aren't), you can help the world a lot more that way than by volunteering at soup kitchens.
"It's a good thing not everything felt as you did or the world would be pretty bleak indeed."
If everyone felt as Eliezer did- that it was better to spend at least some effort doing what the world needed most, rather than what happened to feel good- then maybe we would not have hundreds of millions of people in constant danger of starvation.