21–30 of 96 posts
Earlier 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. 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?
There 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...
So finance came up and I'm not gonna to say, that finance is by definition evil, but I can see quite some bad things coming out of finance, just think about all the trading with food, which painfully increased prices especially for the poorest people in the third world. Not to speak about the effects of the financial crises and their reasons.
I was just quite surprised about this kind of thinking, this kind of simplification and to think of this as the most effective kind of altruism seems to be a bit blinded.
What 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…
I think people just have the desire for easy answers, that they have the one true answer and don't have to wrangle with the complexities of life.
What 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…
Whatever the reasoning behind your actions is, you are going to choose a single action (at each step) -- this forces you to choose the best. That's all utilitarianism is for me -- it tells you nothing about how to construct the utility function. Now the utility this view provides is just that: you can see clearly what sorts of thing you give greater priority, so you'll make the best possible judgement.
What 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…
What 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…
I don't get what people have against utility theory (if that's what you mean by utilitarianism). For me it's one of the few models that must be obeyed: there must be a way to create a partial order among possible choices. Whatever the reasoning behind your actions is, you are going to choose a single action (at each step) -- this forces you to choose the best. That's all utilitarianism is for me -- it tells you nothi…
Oh, and the fact that Singer has long-since given up on trying to prove hedonic total utilitarianism normatively correct, and thus simply begins his books by saying, "Well, I can't prove it to you, but let me appeal to your emotions and intuitions to hammer it into you, and then proceed on with my arguments about what I demand from you."
Which is why it's really quite disappointing to see people fawning over Singer's utilitarianism: it's unproven, it's unreasonable on its face, it engages in rather flagrant neoliberal apologia (ie: charity rather than social reform or revolution), and it thus adds up to a series of bad ideas wearing nice suits.
My charity of choice is Schistomiasis Initiative, which I donate to through GiveWell. The Life You Can Save has a satisfying "Impact Calculator" that can help you visualize what good your money is capable of doing http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org
I urge everyone here to really consider taking the pledge and begin diverting at least some of their income to effective charities. I am now also considering donating a fraction of my 10% to AI research. (Tip: Don't set up automatic donations if doing it yourself manually every month isn't too much of a hassle. The good vibes are definitely worth soaking in!)
There 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...
Looking it, one suggestion came up, that you should go for a career where you can earn as much as possible, because then you could gave more money away, use it for something good. So finance came up and I'm not gonna to say, that finance is by definition evil, but I can see quite some bad things coming out of finance, just think about all the trading with food, which painfully increased prices especially for the poor…
That one comes up a lot and the fundamental problem is that nobody actually does it. People start careers with the intention of doing it but hedonistic treadmill/peer-pressure seems to wring it out of them sooner rather than later.
Even ignoring, as you point out negative externalities, it's just bad advice to suggest that doing something that no one seems capable of carrying though with is a good way to affect positive change.
There 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...
Looking it, one suggestion came up, that you should go for a career where you can earn as much as possible, because then you could gave more money away, use it for something good. So finance came up and I'm not gonna to say, that finance is by definition evil, but I can see quite some bad things coming out of finance, just think about all the trading with food, which painfully increased prices especially for the poor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking it, one suggestion came up, that you should go for a career where you can earn as much as possible, because then you could gave more money away, use it for something good. So finance came up and I'm not gonna to say, that finance is by definition evil, but I can see quite some bad things coming out of finance, just think about all the trading with food, which painfully increased prices especially for the poor…
>Looking it, one suggestion came up, that you should go for a career where you can earn as much as possible, because then you could gave more money away, use it for something good. That one comes up a lot and the fundamental problem is that nobody actually does it. People start careers with the intention of doing it but hedonistic treadmill/peer-pressure seems to wring it out of them sooner rather than later. Even ig…
What if someone really wants to go into finance, likes its money and prestige and now he might be even able, thanks to effective altruism, to appease his morally doubts.