The ‘effective altruists’
lrb.co.uk
The ‘effective altruists’
1–10 of 96 posts
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#2I'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, as a supposed rational person, ran through my life.
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#3What 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 jobs to solve friendly AI? Because if not there is a non-negligible probability of human extinction, and the math clearly says this should be our top priority.
I think it's healthy to be aware of the short comings of effective altruism as well as its benefits. Morality and duty are too nuanced for a single ideology to provide all the answers.
Edit: wording
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#4Is it only me, who would prefer to have the phrase "efficient altruists" rather than "effective altruists"?
In the context of sciences, "effective X" usually means "something that is not X, but in the effect acts as X" (e.g. "effective potential"). So, I when I first met the phrase "effective altruism" I was thinking it is something in the line of Ayn Rand or so - that we should be egoistic, but (some) egoistic behaviours are effectively altruistic. While "how to do as much X given fixed amount of resources?" is talking about being "efficient".
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#5Is it only me, who would prefer to have the phrase "efficient altruists" rather than "effective altruists"? In the context of sciences, "effective X" usually means "something that is not X, but in the effect acts as X" (e.g. "effective potential"). So, I when I first met the phrase "effective altruism" I was thinking it is something in the line of Ayn Rand or so - that we should be egoistic, but (some) egoistic behav…
To my understanding, "effective" also means to have an impact, while "efficient" focuses more on the ratio impact/resources.
In that way, I find the wording "effective" better suited. It means the maximum impact given your resources, while for "efficient" it would be okay to have 80% of the effect if you get that for just 70% of your resources.
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#6What 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 increase child mortality rates in Africa?
Did you mean "decrease" here?
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#7What 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 increase child mortality rates in Africa? Did you mean "decrease" here?
right....sure.... (fixed :-P)
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#8What 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…
There was a post the other day on the Effective Altruists facebook page which read like:
> Does abnormal self-sacrifice inspire social change? (A response to "A Defense of Normality" link below)
> The conventional wisdom is that many movements throughout history (christianity, buddhism, Indian independence) were inspired and fueled by the extraordinary sacrifice of leaders/early adopters (or at least myths about such extreme altruism). The conventional wisdom may be wrong, but maybe we need more abnormal sacrifice in our movement, not less. In fact, I think it's plausibly a good idea for us to donate our kidneys, precisely as a symbol of our commitment-- not necessarily in the hopes that others will follow suit-- but in the hopes that it inspires people to take altruism more seriously.
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#9What 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 nuanced treatment, see: "Moral Tribes" by Joshua Greene.
Re: The ‘effective altruists’
#10Is it only me, who would prefer to have the phrase "efficient altruists" rather than "effective altruists"? In the context of sciences, "effective X" usually means "something that is not X, but in the effect acts as X" (e.g. "effective potential"). So, I when I first met the phrase "effective altruism" I was thinking it is something in the line of Ayn Rand or so - that we should be egoistic, but (some) egoistic behav…
To my understanding, "effective" also means to have an impact, while "efficient" focuses more on the ratio impact/resources. In that way, I find the wording "effective" better suited. It means the maximum impact given your resources, while for "efficient" it would be okay to have 80% of the effect if you get that for just 70% of your resources.
I understand that "effective" has also this meaning. But, as I pointed out, is ambiguous, with the "default" meaning being very different (not just subtly) from the intended one.
Especially as, in evolutionary biology, and game theory, there is a big topic of investigating how egoistic behaviour may give raise to an altruistic effect.
(And of course, the main thing is that adjectives created from nouns are very ambiguous, i.e. effective can mean both "altruism that gives effect" or "altruism that is an effect".)