3 ms·

I keep getting impressed by the EA-proponents ability and eagerness to frame EA as “true altruism” (an actual quote in this case!), as if EA is some purely-rati

I keep getting impressed by the EA-proponents ability and eagerness to frame EA as “true altruism” (an actual quote in this case!), as if EA is some purely-rational approach with no philosophical baggage or assumptions. How utterly self-congratulatory. Another problem I have with EA is how incredibly fragile it is: because it is so reductive and narrowly-focused, you are likely to optimize for the wrong thing (the map is never the territory) and might even do more harm than good. In the best case scenario you might do a lot of good, though.

PeterisP 6y ago
Ah, I'm not really an EA-proponent, so please don't use my arguments as bad examples of their position, that wouldn't be fair. My use of "true altruism" isn't a proper term, I just needed to somehow contrast two different aspects of "altruism-as-understood-in-common-language", to differentiate the theoretical concept of fully unselfish concern for the welfare of others with the (IMHO more popular/realistic) concept that's somewhat like "general habit/desire/concer/action of doing good for others with limited (but still some) selfishness, because of a mix of motivation only part of which is actual altruism". I mean, IMHO framing "effective altruism" as "true altruism" isn't that inaccurate as far as philosophy and definitions are concerned - my main criticism of EA is that actual altruism (according to a strict definition of altruism) is quite rare, so for most people effective altruism isn't personally relevant because most people (including me) simply aren't truly altruistic; it provides a guide on how to maximize something that most people (myself included) don't really want to maximize, they want to maximize other things which may have some overlap with altruism but diverge from it as you leave commonly accepted charity practices and approach various maximums. I do concede that it's definitely good according to most value systems (including purely selfish ones) to have everyone else in your society to be a bit more altruistic, everything just works better that way, so facilitating various nudges towards altruism is generally a Good Thing no matter how altruistic you or I personally are.

PeterisP 6y ago

Ah, I'm not really an EA-proponent, so please don't use my arguments as bad examples of their position, that wouldn't be fair. My use of "true altruism" isn't a proper term, I just needed to somehow contrast two different aspects of "altruism-as-understood-in-common-language", to differentiate the theoretical concept of fully unselfish concern for the welfare of others with the (IMHO more popular/realistic) concept that's somewhat like "general habit/desire/concer/action of doing good for others with limited (but still some) selfishness, because of a mix of motivation only part of which is actual altruism". I mean, IMHO framing "effective altruism" as "true altruism" isn't that inaccurate as far as philosophy and definitions are concerned - my main criticism of EA is that actual altruism (according to a strict definition of altruism) is quite rare, so for most people effective altruism isn't personally relevant because most people (including me) simply aren't truly altruistic; it provides a guide on how to maximize something that most people (myself included) don't really want to maximize, they want to maximize other things which may have some overlap with altruism but diverge from it as you leave commonly accepted charity practices and approach various maximums. I do concede that it's definitely good according to most value systems (including purely selfish ones) to have everyone else in your society to be a bit more altruistic, everything just works better that way, so facilitating various nudges towards altruism is generally a Good Thing no matter how altruistic you or I personally are.