4 ms·

Effective altruism (EA) is a philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible

Effective altruism (EA) 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". [1] Seems like a good idea, if only just to have some sort of open-system for rating charities. I suspect the issue is everything that comes around the idea, specially... people. The problem is always people :-). Perhaps a "Michelin Guide to Charities" would be easier to market and explain? :-p My favorite explanation of how "effective altruism" works is this SMBC comic [2]. :-) -- 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism 2: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-07-13 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-07-13

bradbeattie 4y ago
> if only just to have some sort of open-system for rating charities While the following examples aren't exactly _open_ systems, some organizations address the niche you highlight. Examples: https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.givewell.org/, https://animalcharityevaluators.org/ https://animalcharityevaluators.org/
- emmanueloga_ 4y ago
  I think _open_ is the important part: Would make sense if anyone could come up with the score, following some "standard". That way one could make sure that no specific grader has incentives to give good scores speculatively (or even maliciously).
  - itsdrewmiller 4y ago
    I encourage you to explore givewell's site. They are very transparent about their ratings and processes.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
The problem with EA and other utilitarian systems of thought is two-fold. Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. Secondly, unfettered by principles other than the end justifying the means, you can easily turn those aforementioned biases into justifications for committing horrible acts. Mass murder, or evidently, theft on a massive scale. For instance: "The technological revolution was a disaster for the human race... so I'm going to murder a few people to draw attention to my manifesto against technology." "Social inequality is a disaster for the majority of my countrymen, so I'm going to murder the Bourgeoisie" "My altruism is more effective than anybody else's, so I'm going to steal everybody else's money so that I can put it to better use." How do you stop this shit? Deontological ethics. Don't murder, because murder is wrong. Don't steal, because stealing is wrong. Damn the consequences, stick to simple principles such as these.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  >Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. Um, are you saying that this implies that people should just throw up their hands and donate to whatever causes since who knows? Surely not. Once we acknowledge that these questions can be tackled empirically, that's what EA tries to do. Is there room for bias in this process? Absolutely. Does that justify embracing some sort of epistemic nihilism? Absolutely not.
  - davidgay 4y ago
    > > Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. > Um, are you saying that this implies that people should just throw up their hands and donate to whatever causes since who knows? No, it implies that you shouldn't lecture others that you have the one true answer as to the best path forwards. You are free to (and in fact should) use your best judgment in your own personal choices, just don't confuse that with absolute truth.
    - yanderekko 4y ago
      I don't think EA institutions argue that they have the One True Answer. They just often give recommendations - "eg. if you care about maximizing QALY overall, we recommend charities X, Y, and Z." If I don't care about QALY maximization, fine. But if I do, why would I not listen to the recommendations?
      - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        Longtermism and QALY do not seem compatible.
        xorfish 4y ago
        EA and Longtermism are not the same thing.
        4y ago

bradbeattie 4y ago

> if only just to have some sort of open-system for rating charities While the following examples aren't exactly _open_ systems, some organizations address the niche you highlight. Examples: https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.givewell.org/, https://animalcharityevaluators.org/ https://animalcharityevaluators.org/

emmanueloga_ 4y ago
I think _open_ is the important part: Would make sense if anyone could come up with the score, following some "standard". That way one could make sure that no specific grader has incentives to give good scores speculatively (or even maliciously).
- itsdrewmiller 4y ago
  I encourage you to explore givewell's site. They are very transparent about their ratings and processes.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

The problem with EA and other utilitarian systems of thought is two-fold. Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. Secondly, unfettered by principles other than the end justifying the means, you can easily turn those aforementioned biases into justifications for committing horrible acts. Mass murder, or evidently, theft on a massive scale. For instance: "The technological revolution was a disaster for the human race... so I'm going to murder a few people to draw attention to my manifesto against technology." "Social inequality is a disaster for the majority of my countrymen, so I'm going to murder the Bourgeoisie" "My altruism is more effective than anybody else's, so I'm going to steal everybody else's money so that I can put it to better use." How do you stop this shit? Deontological ethics. Don't murder, because murder is wrong. Don't steal, because stealing is wrong. Damn the consequences, stick to simple principles such as these.

yanderekko 4y ago
>Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. Um, are you saying that this implies that people should just throw up their hands and donate to whatever causes since who knows? Surely not. Once we acknowledge that these questions can be tackled empirically, that's what EA tries to do. Is there room for bias in this process? Absolutely. Does that justify embracing some sort of epistemic nihilism? Absolutely not.
- davidgay 4y ago
  > > Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. > Um, are you saying that this implies that people should just throw up their hands and donate to whatever causes since who knows? No, it implies that you shouldn't lecture others that you have the one true answer as to the best path forwards. You are free to (and in fact should) use your best judgment in your own personal choices, just don't confuse that with absolute truth.
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    I don't think EA institutions argue that they have the One True Answer. They just often give recommendations - "eg. if you care about maximizing QALY overall, we recommend charities X, Y, and Z." If I don't care about QALY maximization, fine. But if I do, why would I not listen to the recommendations?
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      Longtermism and QALY do not seem compatible.
      - xorfish 4y ago
        EA and Longtermism are not the same thing.
        4y ago