>The issue is when people take it to the extreme (like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad, because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent making money and recruiting to contribute more charity and volunteering)
I mean, the concern here is that coming off as an asshole can be self-defeating, not that these views are actually incorrect, right? Seems like it's like being an atheist - an "extreme view" for many and it's a topic that may need to be dealt with with caution sometimes but that's really mostly a critique of the sensitivities of others.
The problem is they can't possibly know if they are correct or not, we just don't have enough information about the actual future and what effect actions now might have on it.
Plus it doesn't take into account our individual competencies and nature. It doesn't matter how much I think curing cancer is more important than my current job, I know absolutely zilch about curing cancer. Also I have no idea if I'm actually right about cancer being a top priority, or if curing it is even possible. Meanwhile sick people that doctors and nurses can save using known techniques are dying right now.
Effective Altruism as a principle is fine, it makes a degree of sense. We do need to invest in long term projects, but all this talk of 1% chance of this or that saving humanity is fiddling while Rome burns.
>Plus it doesn't take into account our individual competencies and nature. It doesn't matter how much I think curing cancer is more important than my current job, I know absolutely zilch about curing cancer. Also I have no idea if I'm actually right about cancer being a top priority, or if curing it is even possible.
If curing cancer is a top priority, the EA advice is not that you should quit your job and try to cure cancer. It's probably to keep your job (which you likely have developed a comparative advantage in) and do serious research into which organizations will actually make progress towards curing cancer, and EA orgs will often try to provide advice on this latter front.
Yes, there is a big emphasis in these communities on various sorts of existential risks, but it doesn't imply that you can't be an EA if you have different beliefs on these risks, so long as those beliefs are informed by open-minded criticism and not "only privileged techbros could possibly care about this"-style sneers
No there is also something bad about rejecting less quantifiable forms of charity as well. Movements grow out of communities and through solidarity and you build neither by mailing a check across the world and considering your obligation met.
I do think it's good to optimize money spent for these things much of the time but it's also just inhuman to have no place, or respect, for forms of charity that are based on, form and reinforce human connection.
>No there is also something bad about rejecting less quantifiable forms of charity as well.
I don't think EA argues for this. I guess it depends on what you mean by "less quantifiable."
>I do think it's good to optimize money spent for these things much of the time but it's also just inhuman to have no place, or respect, for forms of charity that are based on, form and reinforce human connection.
Describing this as "inhuman" is pretty extreme. In any case I think if you acknowledge that you're indulging in various non-charitable preferences through your donations I don't think EA would offer a serious critique beyond pointing out that you could be doing better. I think a major goal of EA though is to get people to truly wrangle with their biases here. These organizings are pragmatic - they're not trying to chide us into being moral saints, but just "giving what we can" - a popular EA slogan.
The problem is the consequentialist ethics behind the position. Rigid consequentialism leads to all kinds of abhorrent views and is almost universally rejected among ethicists (with a few notable exceptions).
I don't think EA implies adherence to "rigid consequentialism". Like a lot of EA advocates are deeply into animal welfare for these reasons, but they offer advice to those that aren't. I think the weaker unifying argument is just that EA encourages more self-examination regarding whether one's charitable efforts are actually achieving one's values, and to provide advice to help achieve better alignment on this.
1. Both of them are concerns.
2. In case you are really lacking that much self awareness, yes, you are coming off as one in this conversation. You may call me "sensitive" and feel better about yourself now.
>In case you are really lacking that much self awareness, yes, you are coming off as one in this conversation. You may call me "sensitive" and feel better about yourself now.
I mean, the concern here is that coming off as an asshole can be self-defeating, not that these views are actually incorrect, right? Seems like it's like being an atheist - an "extreme view" for many and it's a topic that may need to be dealt with with caution sometimes but that's really mostly a critique of the sensitivities of others.