3 ms·
Maybe you are pursuing a different point than mine, but my own point was about alienation, not supererogation. I don’t put EA proponents on such a lofty pedest
by yrimaxi 6y ago
Maybe you are pursuing a different point than mine, but my own point was about alienation, not supererogation. I don’t put EA proponents on such a lofty pedestal.
- rossnordby 6y agoYup, started writing my response before I saw yours, definitely a different point. I do think that the implied burden is still alienating in a sense and that's what motivated my post (the philosophy can just feel really bad in some ways when you get into the nitty gritty, and many people don't respond well to that), but you were clearly talking about a different kind of alienation.
- yrimaxi 6y agoI guess it’s affirming to think that people reject one’s ethical outlook because it would necessitate such an awe-inspiring commitment or burden. Rather than for more analytic reasons.
- rossnordby 6y agoIt doesn't actually require awe-inspiring commitment and dramatic personal sacrifice, and such grand gestures would likely end up unsustainable. I just suspect that the ideas themselves will tend to sound really hoity toity and holier than thou, which isn't helpful in persuasion. Case in point- I was deliberately trying to avoid that, and it appears I failed badly. (Edit: reading my first post, it's definitely the case that I did not make the connection here explicit- the rejection isn't merely 'oh no I can't handle the TRUTH', but more like, 'ugh, these guys'. A big part of it is social in nature, stacked on top of the underlying problem of asking too much.) A huge part of EA is driven by analysis of effectiveness. If I want to be effective, I have to figure out how to be effective. If someone provides a valuable insight on how to be more effective, it's not a rejection of my ethical outlook, but rather useful information.