3 ms·

For a more interesting critique of Effective Altruism and Peter Singer see: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/05/21/how-and-how-not-to-be-good https://www.n

by slibhb 6y ago

For a more interesting critique of Effective Altruism and Peter Singer see: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/05/21/how-and-how-not-to-be-good https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2015/05/21/how-and-how-not-... Effective Altruism is a particularly base version of utilitarianism. It cheerfully accepts situations where you would be required to eat your grandmother or allow your child to starve in order to feed a village of people you've never met in another country. Peter Singer argues that it's okay to be a concentration camp guard because if you refuse, someone else will be found to take your position, and they might be more brutal than you. Do you believe the earth is overpopulated? If so, and if you cannot live in such a way as to offset the damage caused by your existence, effective altruism calls for suicide.

Robotbeat 6y ago
> Do you believe the earth is overpopulated? If so, and if you cannot live in such a way as to offset the damage caused by your existence, effective altruism calls for suicide. I think that has a lot more to say about the belief the Earth is overpopulated (and the idea that living in a way to offset that damage is impossible) than EA. There are several pretty substantially misanthropic implications in this common belief that are not often well-examined, and (flaws with the EA approach aside) that a proper rational approach seems to point to a pretty drastic solution should cause us to re-examine these super commonly held (and flippantly repeated) ideas. People say so flippantly that the Earth is overpopulated and there’s nothing I can individually do to offset my negative contribution, and that is just sort of jaw-dropping to me. I don’t think that realization is helpful, and I certainly don’t think you should blame effective altruism for pointing out the logical consequences.
- slibhb 6y ago
  Whether or not the earth is overpopulated (and I agree it's not), it is plausible that there are people who, no matter what they do, will increase net suffering. Peter Singer is pro-euthanasia of course. Personally, I'd pick a moral philosophy that forbids liquidating useless people but that's just me.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I'm not sure I understand what net suffering is. It seems to me that every person born increases total suffering, but net? What do you "net" it against? I guess you can equate "increase net suffering" to a concept of "increasing the average intensity of suffering per unit time across all people". But you can't net my pleasure against your suffering, can you? Or say I spend 80 years of a perfect life, and then die of Alzheimers or a particularly painful cancer. Did I accumulate a "balance" that can be counted against someone else's relatively miserable life? Or did my illness and death mean that my average is really no better than someone whose life sucked but died suddenly of a heart attack? If someone has great achievements and suffers from chronic mental illness that gives them huge ups and downs, can their suffering and pleasure be compared to someone who has neither? Which increased/decreased net suffering for the world or population?
    - slibhb 6y ago
      > I'm not sure I understand what net suffering is. It seems to me that every person born increases total suffering, but net? Utilitarians say there is only one moral dimension, utility. Suffering is negative utility. If you create more utility than you consume you decrease total suffering (or increase total utility, which amounts to the same thing). > But you can't net my pleasure against your suffering, can you? According to Peter Singer you can. An objection to this kind of thinking is utility monsters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster > Or say I spend 80 years of a perfect life, and then die of Alzheimers or a particularly painful cancer. Did I accumulate a "balance" that can be counted against someone else's relatively miserable life? Or did my illness and death mean that my average is really no better than someone whose life sucked but died suddenly of a heart attack? > If someone has great achievements and suffers from chronic mental illness that gives them huge ups and downs, can their suffering and pleasure be compared to someone who has neither? Which increased/decreased net suffering for the world or population? I agree with these objections. To me, this kind of utilitarianism seems like a bizarre simplification. How can you weigh a sunny day against a panic attack?

by slibhb 6y ago

Robotbeat 6y ago

> Do you believe the earth is overpopulated? If so, and if you cannot live in such a way as to offset the damage caused by your existence, effective altruism calls for suicide. I think that has a lot more to say about the belief the Earth is overpopulated (and the idea that living in a way to offset that damage is impossible) than EA. There are several pretty substantially misanthropic implications in this common belief that are not often well-examined, and (flaws with the EA approach aside) that a proper rational approach seems to point to a pretty drastic solution should cause us to re-examine these super commonly held (and flippantly repeated) ideas. People say so flippantly that the Earth is overpopulated and there’s nothing I can individually do to offset my negative contribution, and that is just sort of jaw-dropping to me. I don’t think that realization is helpful, and I certainly don’t think you should blame effective altruism for pointing out the logical consequences.

slibhb 6y ago
Whether or not the earth is overpopulated (and I agree it's not), it is plausible that there are people who, no matter what they do, will increase net suffering. Peter Singer is pro-euthanasia of course. Personally, I'd pick a moral philosophy that forbids liquidating useless people but that's just me.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what net suffering is. It seems to me that every person born increases total suffering, but net? What do you "net" it against? I guess you can equate "increase net suffering" to a concept of "increasing the average intensity of suffering per unit time across all people". But you can't net my pleasure against your suffering, can you? Or say I spend 80 years of a perfect life, and then die of Alzheimers or a particularly painful cancer. Did I accumulate a "balance" that can be counted against someone else's relatively miserable life? Or did my illness and death mean that my average is really no better than someone whose life sucked but died suddenly of a heart attack? If someone has great achievements and suffers from chronic mental illness that gives them huge ups and downs, can their suffering and pleasure be compared to someone who has neither? Which increased/decreased net suffering for the world or population?
  - slibhb 6y ago
    > I'm not sure I understand what net suffering is. It seems to me that every person born increases total suffering, but net? Utilitarians say there is only one moral dimension, utility. Suffering is negative utility. If you create more utility than you consume you decrease total suffering (or increase total utility, which amounts to the same thing). > But you can't net my pleasure against your suffering, can you? According to Peter Singer you can. An objection to this kind of thinking is utility monsters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster > Or say I spend 80 years of a perfect life, and then die of Alzheimers or a particularly painful cancer. Did I accumulate a "balance" that can be counted against someone else's relatively miserable life? Or did my illness and death mean that my average is really no better than someone whose life sucked but died suddenly of a heart attack? > If someone has great achievements and suffers from chronic mental illness that gives them huge ups and downs, can their suffering and pleasure be compared to someone who has neither? Which increased/decreased net suffering for the world or population? I agree with these objections. To me, this kind of utilitarianism seems like a bizarre simplification. How can you weigh a sunny day against a panic attack?