Argument For E-E > Other Art

The following is an adaptation of Peter Singer's argument for donating to foreign aid.

1. Suffering and death are bad.
2. Preventing something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, would result in a better outcome than not preventing that bad thing from happening.
3. All things being equal, by funding entertainment-education in developing nations instead of funding narrative media targeting first world audiences, you can prevent more suffering and death, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
4. Therefore, all things being equal, funding entertainment-education for developing nations would result in a better outcome than would funding narrative media for first world audiences.

     The argument basically takes the form of "charity X > charity Y." It doesn't recommend how one should act, only that a first specific action leads to better outcomes than a second specific action. These two actions fall somewhere on a continuum of other actions, some better than both, some worse than both, and some falling in between the two.

     All the weight falls on the third premise. As I have explained elsewhere on this blog, I believe there is much more evidence supporting the impact of E-E in developing nations than of other narrative media targeting first world audiences. Apparently, GiveWell does too. If there is a case to make for the superior importance of first world art and entertainment, I am confident that it relies on speculative claims, rather than documented findings. I would support funding the research of those speculative claims more than I would support funding the art itself.