[deleted]
The ‘effective altruists’
11–20 of 96 posts
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#12What I like about the effective altruist movement is the research they provide. What I don't like is the cultish behavior, and inherent bias that what I think is good is "universally" good. Effective altruism is nothing more than a rebranding of utilitarianism, and suffers from the same moral quandaries. Should I kill someone if it is the best way to decrease child mortality rates in Africa? Should we all quit our jo…
Many of the perceived problems with utilitarianism result from confusing "utility" with wealth, or in otherwise simplifying what optimizing human flourishing would actually look like in practice. Although reasonable people disagree on many principles of moral thought, a point of near-consensus is that if all other things are equal, we should try to reduce needless suffering as much as possible. For a great and nuance…
This hits on the problem with "Effective Altruism" — it is exactly the bad form of utilitarian thinking.
It seems purely about reallocating some wealth from the rich to the poor. That's nice, but it's only treating the symptoms and ignoring many other factors that influence human flourishing, such as an individual's ability to improve their own circumstances (instead of waiting for a generous benefactor to give them some cash). Surely addressing poverty involves systemic changes, not just charity. And besides, charity can also have a negative utility, feeding feelings of inferiority in the receiver and leading to resentment.
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of the perceived problems with utilitarianism result from confusing "utility" with wealth, or in otherwise simplifying what optimizing human flourishing would actually look like in practice. Although reasonable people disagree on many principles of moral thought, a point of near-consensus is that if all other things are equal, we should try to reduce needless suffering as much as possible. For a great and nuance…
This hits on the problem with "Effective Altruism" — it is exactly the bad form of utilitarian thinking. It seems purely about reallocating some wealth from the rich to the poor. That's nice, but it's only treating the symptoms and ignoring many other factors that influence human flourishing, such as an individual's ability to improve their own circumstances (instead of waiting for a generous benefactor to give them…
One of the factors that influences human flourishing is the prevalence of malaria nearby. If you get malaria and die, your ability to improve your own circumstances falls to 0.
"People now have access to bed nets which make them less likely to get malaria and die" seems like it would count as a systemic change.
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#14"Pathological Altruism"
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873246884045785455...
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#15What I like about the effective altruist movement is the research they provide. What I don't like is the cultish behavior, and inherent bias that what I think is good is "universally" good. Effective altruism is nothing more than a rebranding of utilitarianism, and suffers from the same moral quandaries. Should I kill someone if it is the best way to decrease child mortality rates in Africa? Should we all quit our jo…
> Should I kill someone if it is the best way to decrease child mortality rates in Africa?
I'd be very surprised if the EA movement has a consensus opinion on this question.
> Should we all quit our jobs to solve friendly AI?
I'm not aware that anyone has ever said we should do this. (If you have an example, feel free to share.) The closest I can come is something like "most people should donate as much money as they can to the cause of AI risk". That might itself be an exaggeration, and it's a fringe position within EA.
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#16What I like about the effective altruist movement is the research they provide. What I don't like is the cultish behavior, and inherent bias that what I think is good is "universally" good. Effective altruism is nothing more than a rebranding of utilitarianism, and suffers from the same moral quandaries. Should I kill someone if it is the best way to decrease child mortality rates in Africa? Should we all quit our jo…
> Should I kill someone if it is the best way to decrease child mortality rates in Africa? I'd be very surprised if the EA movement has a consensus opinion on this question. > Should we all quit our jobs to solve friendly AI? I'm not aware that anyone has ever said we should do this. (If you have an example, feel free to share.) The closest I can come is something like "most people should donate as much money as they…
>> Should I kill someone if it is the best way to decrease child mortality rates in Africa?
>I'd be very surprised if the EA movement has a consensus opinion on this question.
Right, but the rest of the world absolutely does have a consensus opinion on this. I think dmvaldman's point is that it's disturbing EA doesn't.
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should I kill someone if it is the best way to decrease child mortality rates in Africa? I'd be very surprised if the EA movement has a consensus opinion on this question. > Should we all quit our jobs to solve friendly AI? I'm not aware that anyone has ever said we should do this. (If you have an example, feel free to share.) The closest I can come is something like "most people should donate as much money as they…
>> Should I kill someone if it is the best way to decrease child mortality rates in Africa? >I'd be very surprised if the EA movement has a consensus opinion on this question. Right, but the rest of the world absolutely does have a consensus opinion on this. I think dmvaldman's point is that it's disturbing EA doesn't.
The world thinks they have a consensus opinion on this, but actually they probably don't. Otherwise, why is bin laden dead?
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
This hits on the problem with "Effective Altruism" — it is exactly the bad form of utilitarian thinking. It seems purely about reallocating some wealth from the rich to the poor. That's nice, but it's only treating the symptoms and ignoring many other factors that influence human flourishing, such as an individual's ability to improve their own circumstances (instead of waiting for a generous benefactor to give them…
One of the factors that influences human flourishing is the prevalence of malaria nearby. If you get malaria and die, your ability to improve your own circumstances falls to 0. "People now have access to bed nets which make them less likely to get malaria and die" seems like it would count as a systemic change.
Good point. But if the only way you can avoid malaria is if someone gives you a bed net, then your ability to improve your own circumstances is still close to 0. You're still impoverished and powerless, you're just not dead. And now you're dependent on a source of bed nets that might dry up.
If plain old reciprocal altruism hadn't somehow failed, there would be a way that you could exchange your labour or otherwise for bed nets. The people paying your wages could be acting altruistically, or they could be rationally self-interested actors.
These are the sort of systemic changes I was thinking of, but I like your argument.
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#19There is also a TED talk by Peter Singer: "The why and how of effective altruism" [1]
[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_eff...
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#20What I like about the effective altruist movement is the research they provide. What I don't like is the cultish behavior, and inherent bias that what I think is good is "universally" good. Effective altruism is nothing more than a rebranding of utilitarianism, and suffers from the same moral quandaries. Should I kill someone if it is the best way to decrease child mortality rates in Africa? Should we all quit our jo…
> and the math clearly says this should be our top priority.
with some gigantic assumptions...