4 ms·

Mencius already refuted EA in Mencius 3A:5, "I have heard that this MacAskill is an Effective Altruist. Now Singer considers that in the regulation of funeral

Mencius already refuted EA in Mencius 3A:5, "I have heard that this MacAskill is an Effective Altruist. Now Singer considers that in the regulation of funeral matters a spare simplicity should be the rule. MacAskill thinks with EA doctrines to change the customs of the kingdom - how does he regard them as if they were wrong, and not honor them? Notwithstanding his views, MacAskill buried his own parents in a sumptuous manner, and so he served them in the way which his doctrines discountenance. … "Heaven gives birth to creatures in such a way that they have one root, and MacAskill makes them to have two roots. This is the cause of his error. In the most ancient times, there were some who did not inter their parents. When their parents died, they took them up and threw them into some water-channel. Afterwards, when passing by them, they saw foxes and wild-cats devouring them, and flies and gnats biting at them. The perspiration started out upon their foreheads, and they looked away, unable to bear the sight. It was not on account of other people that this perspiration flowed. The emotions of their hearts affected their faces and eyes, and instantly they went home, and came back with baskets and spades and covered the bodies. If the covering them thus was indeed right, you may see that the filial son and virtuous man, in interring in a handsome manner their parents, act according to a proper rule." EA is based on our natural emotional responses: pain is bad, pleasure is good, etc. But it rationalizes until it has lost its own roots. Suddenly we're debating about making lions extinct because they hunt prey and converting the universe to hedonium. You must preserve the root!

typon 4y ago
I genuinely can't tell if this is sarcasm or a serious attempt at critiquing Effective Altruism. Can anyone disentangle this (word salad) for me?
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  TL;DR those who aim for rationally-directed good behavior end up doing things (i.e. expending resources that could have gone to something more-beneficial) that don't fit their rational-good framework—when they run into these seemingly deeper impulses and urges toward right-behavior, they can't or don't resist them in favor of their rational framework. In the passage's language, an effective-altruist is born with one "root" (I suppose the author would argue one that's very similar for most everyone) but create another with reason, which leads to tension when the two are in conflict. (I have no dog in this fight, this is the best I can do to sort out the meaning of the post, I'm not necessarily interested in defending its argument)
  - mst 4y ago
    Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote an article about this called 'purchase fuzzies and utilons separately' that I think both explains and dissolves the apparent contradiction. https://www.readthesequences.com/Purchase-Fuzzies-And-Utilons-Separately https://www.readthesequences.com/Purchase-Fuzzies-And-Utilon... (I do not by any means endorse all of EY's opinions but that specific article resonates with me)
    - earthboundkid 4y ago
      Yudkowsky tries to explain the hypocrisy, but he doesn't do anything to address the metaethical question, which TFA also hammers on. You can try to ground ethics naturalistically, as utilitarians do and Mencius did,* but once you do that, you're on the hook to make sure the outcomes connect to your ground, which EA completely fails to do. The ground of ethics in Mencius is natural sentiment. You nurture your seeds of naturally good sentiments, and so grow into an ethical person who has mature sentiments. At the end of the process of maturation, you still have your seeds of desire intact and flowering in their fullest form. The ground of ethics in EA/utilitarianism/Mohism is pleasure/pain/utility functions. That seems to make sense on the surface, but then the whole thing falls apart once you dig into it. The root of the thing is my instinct that I want my own utility function to be satisfied. Nothing in that root compels me to care about anyone else's utility. The logical thing to do is to just rewrite your own utility function to be happy with whatever happens and then stop trying to be a utilitarian or anything else! Why on earth should I rewrite it to "expand the circle" to use Singer's term or embrace "universal love" to use Moh's term? And if I could rewrite my utility function to care about others, why shouldn't we all just rewrite our functions to desire annihilation or whatever? The universe is already full of utility monsters. Am I supposed to slay them or let them slay me? The fact that all the EA people end up being hypocrites is interesting just because it shows that end of the day they're not really able to put into practice the idea that their own utility is just one drop in a sea of cosmic utility. No one can. * Mencius also appeals to Heaven as the source of our natural sentiments, so it's not a totally naturalistic system of ethics, but the system is pretty close to naturalistic, and you can choose to take that element of his system or leave it when you modernize him.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  My best guess: One proponent of EA did something different from what another proponent of EA suggests is correct (i.e. held a lavish funeral for a family member rather than something more sustainable). This is a demonstration that when EA creates an internal conflict between what our natural impulses say are correct and the deductions of EA's tenants say are correct, the former is destined to win.

typon 4y ago

I genuinely can't tell if this is sarcasm or a serious attempt at critiquing Effective Altruism. Can anyone disentangle this (word salad) for me?

yamtaddle 4y ago
TL;DR those who aim for rationally-directed good behavior end up doing things (i.e. expending resources that could have gone to something more-beneficial) that don't fit their rational-good framework—when they run into these seemingly deeper impulses and urges toward right-behavior, they can't or don't resist them in favor of their rational framework. In the passage's language, an effective-altruist is born with one "root" (I suppose the author would argue one that's very similar for most everyone) but create another with reason, which leads to tension when the two are in conflict. (I have no dog in this fight, this is the best I can do to sort out the meaning of the post, I'm not necessarily interested in defending its argument)
- mst 4y ago
  Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote an article about this called 'purchase fuzzies and utilons separately' that I think both explains and dissolves the apparent contradiction. https://www.readthesequences.com/Purchase-Fuzzies-And-Utilons-Separately https://www.readthesequences.com/Purchase-Fuzzies-And-Utilon... (I do not by any means endorse all of EY's opinions but that specific article resonates with me)
  - earthboundkid 4y ago
    Yudkowsky tries to explain the hypocrisy, but he doesn't do anything to address the metaethical question, which TFA also hammers on. You can try to ground ethics naturalistically, as utilitarians do and Mencius did,* but once you do that, you're on the hook to make sure the outcomes connect to your ground, which EA completely fails to do. The ground of ethics in Mencius is natural sentiment. You nurture your seeds of naturally good sentiments, and so grow into an ethical person who has mature sentiments. At the end of the process of maturation, you still have your seeds of desire intact and flowering in their fullest form. The ground of ethics in EA/utilitarianism/Mohism is pleasure/pain/utility functions. That seems to make sense on the surface, but then the whole thing falls apart once you dig into it. The root of the thing is my instinct that I want my own utility function to be satisfied. Nothing in that root compels me to care about anyone else's utility. The logical thing to do is to just rewrite your own utility function to be happy with whatever happens and then stop trying to be a utilitarian or anything else! Why on earth should I rewrite it to "expand the circle" to use Singer's term or embrace "universal love" to use Moh's term? And if I could rewrite my utility function to care about others, why shouldn't we all just rewrite our functions to desire annihilation or whatever? The universe is already full of utility monsters. Am I supposed to slay them or let them slay me? The fact that all the EA people end up being hypocrites is interesting just because it shows that end of the day they're not really able to put into practice the idea that their own utility is just one drop in a sea of cosmic utility. No one can. * Mencius also appeals to Heaven as the source of our natural sentiments, so it's not a totally naturalistic system of ethics, but the system is pretty close to naturalistic, and you can choose to take that element of his system or leave it when you modernize him.
aidenn0 4y ago
My best guess: One proponent of EA did something different from what another proponent of EA suggests is correct (i.e. held a lavish funeral for a family member rather than something more sustainable). This is a demonstration that when EA creates an internal conflict between what our natural impulses say are correct and the deductions of EA's tenants say are correct, the former is destined to win.