When people try to make these judgements you end up repeating the mistakes of communism, where (e.g.) very good research into genetics and psychology was abandoned because people thought it wouldn't be useful, and resources were wasted producing old manufactured goods (inefficient machines and the like) that no-one wanted.
Even if in this one example the $20k was obtained through a net negative action, overall it seems like the invisible hand is better at allocating resources than well-intentioned human judgement. So the best strategy for the world, as counterintuitive as it seems, is to blindly do whatever makes you the most money.
You should read about negative externalities. If everyone did whatever would make them the most money, the net effect would be to exploit as many resources and turn them into waste at an ever increasing speed, since the goal is simply to increase the money velocity. The result would be a population explosion and crash.
Looking at the graph of the human population, are you so sure the efficiency of capitalism is sustainable?
Sure; there are specific cases where capitalism doesn't work well and other approaches are better. I see what I wrote goes further than I intended. What I meant to say was that in the general, overall average case capitalism works best. But "blindly" was overstating it.
Under ideal circumstances, the invisible hand finds the best solution for people's needs weighted by their wealth. The needs of a poor person do not count at all, which is why we are considering donations. We have many rules already in place to prevent negative side-effects caused by people doing "blindly whatever makes the most money", like enslaving their debtors. The failure of communism does not mean that everyone is better off when we stop thinking about the needs of others.
>the mistakes of communism, where (e.g.) very good research into genetics and psychology was abandoned because people thought it wouldn't be useful, and resources were wasted producing old manufactured goods (inefficient machines and the like) that no-one wanted
Are you taking as given that this never happens under capitalism?
> Are you taking as given that this never happens under capitalism?
Of course it's not foolproof. But the feedback loops that supply and demand provide mean that resources are more likely to be spent on things that at least some people want.
Even if in this one example the $20k was obtained through a net negative action, overall it seems like the invisible hand is better at allocating resources than well-intentioned human judgement. So the best strategy for the world, as counterintuitive as it seems, is to blindly do whatever makes you the most money.