{
  "id": "source:current-problems-moral-parliament-in-practice",
  "commit": "8df2d0ddbc6d91b9841c6bbb94dbde1fc7c00137",
  "path": "src/content/problems/moral-parliament-in-practice.md",
  "sha256": "3de010c62c628b331725792ff2e1d8aef4723f96d50ab1ac1eed6c647e90e6c3",
  "byteLength": 954,
  "text": "---\ntitle: \"Moral Parliament in Practice\"\nnumber: 16\nstatement: \"How should a real giver allocate money when unsure which moral framework is right, and do different methods give stable answers?\"\nprogress: \"A comparison of allocation methods, such as credence-weighted averaging, moral parliaments and maximizing expected choice-worthiness, on real portfolios, with their sensitivity reported.\"\nconditions: [\"single-lens\"]\nstatus: open\nbounty: \"Unfunded. The Question Bounties program will attach prizes once it is funded.\"\n---\n\n## Why it matters\n\nThe [Single Lens](/diagnosis/single-lens/) is the condition Charitology was founded to treat. Treating it means giving people a sound way to act on several frameworks at once.\n\n## Where to start\n\nThe [Portfolio Builder](/tools/portfolio-builder/) implements a simple credence-weighted method. The open problem is whether more sophisticated methods give meaningfully different, and more defensible, answers.\n",
  "hash": "4601ea2c4cde4ad9a6f1b1d29465d02ec26a898d7e4d8b56389cf0075b2764ce"
}