[deleted]
The ‘effective altruists’
31–40 of 96 posts
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#32What 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…
Sacrificing other people for a supposed "greater good" is highly unlikely to be beneficial because it destroys trust in society. It's a major cost if everybody has to be constantly wary of utilitarians pushing them in front of trolleys, and if everybody will betray you as soon as their calculations say it's a good idea then capitalism can't function, and capitalism is the only effective economic system yet discovered…
This seems like a straw man, but maybe this really is how some utilitarians think. My view is: if the cost in terms of trust lost is greater than the expected benefit of an action, then the utilitarian answer is not to do it. If the only way to prevent a "race to zero trust" is to make some bright line rules and enforce them universally, then that's the utilitarian answer. It's literally impossible for another ethical system to reliably provide greater total utility than utilitarianism, because utilitarianism is the rule that you do whatever leads to the greatest utility.
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#33What 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…
[deleted]
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#34What 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…
You won't succeed at the goal of being optimal. But you can at least do better than the default, donate 10%, and feel good about that. [1]
> Why ten percent?
> [...] The most important thing is having a Schelling point, and ten percent is nice, round, divinely ordained [that's a tithing joke], and – crucially – the Schelling point upon which we have already settled. [...]
> It’s ten percent because definitions were made for Man, not Man for definitions, and if we define “good person” in a way such that everyone is sitting around miserable because they can’t reach an unobtainable standard, we are stupid definition-makers. If we are smart definition-makers, we will define it in precisely that way which makes it the most effective tool to convince people to give at least that much.
1: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/19/nobody-is-perfect-every...
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#35Peter Singer's work has influenced my life in a big way. I have taken the 10% income to charity pledge and am on track this year to hit it(I calculate it every week as my income may begin varying weekly). 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 h…
[deleted]
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#36Earlier 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?
Because Obama likes to kill bad guys.
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#37What 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…
You won't succeed at the goal of being optimal. But you can at least do better than the default, donate 10%, and feel good about that. [1] > Why ten percent? > [...] The most important thing is having a Schelling point, and ten percent is nice, round, divinely ordained [that's a tithing joke], and – crucially – the Schelling point upon which we have already settled. [...] > It’s ten percent because definitions were m…
[deleted]
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#38Earlier 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…
I don't understand how Effective Altruism says that you can't treat systemic causes. I think that given the large increase in utility that systemic changes would cause they would be precisely in favor of these changes most of all.
I am not aware of any research that says that charity has net negative expected utility. No charity to my knowledge forces any recipients to take the charity. So you would expect any individual who would receive negative utility from charity would choose to turn it down.
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#39What 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'm curious as to what are some alternate theories of how to do the most good besides a summing-like equation across individuals?
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#40I've read this book together with the two books about Effective Altruism bei Peter Singer (The Life You Can Save and The Most Good You Can Do), and I have to say these books have really changed my life. I know it sounds cheesy, but I've never read books that had such a lasting influence on me. Those books provide just the right rational and scientific arguments and have shown me with how much cognitive dissonance I,…
I'd argue that being an effective altruist actually makes you less rational. As part of your genetic fitness, your brain is optimized for survival, reproduction, and keeping your children alive. If you're in the middle class and you give your money away then it goes against those objectives.