I think I’m having a bit of an autistic burnout moment over politics. I’m moving a lot more left over the years but just don’t feel like I can do anything. I have 2 years left on a work contract and it would be killer to lose that job, but also I want to help people in ways where quitting might be the best option. I want to learn about politics and history more, but I also don’t want to stress about it because I don’t feel like it changes things that much. Id like a community that talks about these feelings and I feel like this should be that community for me. Let’s just chat about it.
I might be ignorant on this, but i would assume that EA is most efficient/effective by definition ( Effective altruism is a philosophical and social movement that advocates “using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis” ). Of course how some may implement it is an other question. What flaws are you thinking of?
There’s a portion of the EA movement that uses their beliefs to justify whatever it takes to make as much money as possible so they can donate more. SBF was in this camp, for example.
It’s modern-day secular indulgences for a lot of people – it doesn’t matter how much harm you’ve really done, so long as you are effectively helping people.
There is also a lot of issue with how they figure out what’s most effective.
I guess it could be used that way, but moral licensing can occur with any form of good deed. For the average person EA wont mean that they will use slave labor in their oil rigs to make money for feeding children in Africa, just that their limited resources can still make a significant difference. I agree however that its sometimes hard to figure out whats most effective ( although we can make educated estimations ).
Yeah, I realize that these are extremes of it, but when the faces of the movement are overwhelmingly awful people, it’s a problem.
It’s based/relies on utilitarianism for its moral framework, and I’m just decidedly not a utilitarian. I consider relationships, rights, and motives to matter when judging something.
The whole “earn to give” thing is just a disastrous concept, most publicly in giving cover to things like FTX.
It lacks any theory of power or overall social or economic change. Singer on this issue:
I agree. I built my life around earn to give. It just leaves the giver morally empty and supporting a capitalist system, and the receiver dependent on charity. A hundred thousand people receiving malaria vaccines (or whatever) is immensely powerful, but they still live in a country that didn’t apparently want to give malaria vaccines to its citizens? What will happen to them now? It does nothing to solve the problem. And I can’t really know because I live across the world. Local action is the best way. Even if it’s not “cost effective” you can identify problems that affect real people right next door, and both of you will benefit from that, and make a friend.
I think utilitarianism is too diverse to just put EA in that box and therefore say its bad. I agree that it could be used as a cover, but for most people it just means finding the best way to help with their limited resources. I agree that it probably wont make systematic changes, but that requires a level of capital that is unavailable for the average person anyway, who can probably make a more significant change in this regard using their voice and vote, while directing their modest resources to where it can already make significant improvement.
Here’s a really interesting video by Philosophy Tube about Effective Altruism. It digs into the assumptions behind EA, the way good intentions can lead to great consequences (a different type of effect of altruism - whoops), how those at the forefront of the movement themselves are not quite as altruistic or effective at giving away their money as they claim, criticisms of the philosophies themselves, just a whole lot of really good food for thought.