4 ms·
In my view it's a movement for people making excuses for themselves. You don't need movements to be altruistic, you just do it or not. Of course they end up g
by headsoup 4y ago
In my view it's a movement for people making excuses for themselves. You don't need movements to be altruistic, you just do it or not.
Of course they end up getting tied up in knots because they're trying to project altruism through continuously more complex justifications.
- medstrom 4y agoYes, that would make the movement suspect. But if you'd read MacAskill or other sources, you'd know the original motivation was pretty much the opposite. The were aghast that lots of people currently donate to charities that ensure e.g. 4 livers to save 4 lives for the same amount of money that could've saved 1000 lives in another country. To reiterate, all these donors are already altruistic, and the original EAs were horrified at the 996 lives lost through the altruists' lack of thought. The emphasis is not on the altruism but on the effectiveness. The altruism is a given: if it wasn't, you'd not be moved by any of the material anyway.
- headsoup 4y agoI get that, but I find that kind of thinking achieves nothing practical because it's endlessly scalable, and hence the tie in knots problem because it starts justifying "well I just need to extract another 500% profit because then I can really start helping." and as soon as an immoral justification is accepted it's very conflicting. Obviously this is not a blanked outcome, but it seems to be where the wealthy SBF types wander into, especially if their wealth is not entirely 'clean' in the first place. Reminds me of arguments like, say, the Sacklers' opioid crisis isn't all bad because they donated to charity, we should appreciate the good that came.
- medstrom 4y agoAn interesting discussion to be sure. But can't "net good" be a satisfactory judge for the Sacklers' crisis?