4 ms·
The problem is the consequentialist ethics behind the position. Rigid consequentialism leads to all kinds of abhorrent views and is almost universally rejected
by jonathanstrange 4y ago
The problem is the consequentialist ethics behind the position. Rigid consequentialism leads to all kinds of abhorrent views and is almost universally rejected among ethicists (with a few notable exceptions).
- yanderekko 4y agoI don't think EA implies adherence to "rigid consequentialism". Like a lot of EA advocates are deeply into animal welfare for these reasons, but they offer advice to those that aren't. I think the weaker unifying argument is just that EA encourages more self-examination regarding whether one's charitable efforts are actually achieving one's values, and to provide advice to help achieve better alignment on this.