3 ms·

When people use moral identifiers, like 'altruist' or 'philanthropist' , etc. they are trying to shortcut past the normal societal repetitional mechanisms to be

by cwkoss 4y ago

When people use moral identifiers, like 'altruist' or 'philanthropist' , etc. they are trying to shortcut past the normal societal repetitional mechanisms to be viewed as a moral person. The people who want to take these shortcuts tend to be the least moral people. Same force that leads the immoral to be more likely loudly publicly identify with a religion. EA may be an interesting perspective, but I'm immediately wary of anyone who self-identifies as an "effective altruist".

gruez 4y ago
>EA may be an interesting perspective, but I'm immediately wary of anyone who self-identifies as an "effective altruist". The logic makes sense on the surface. For instance, if someone self-identifies himself as a philanthropist/altruist and makes an effort to make that known I'll be a bit suspicious. However, effective altruism is a movement/community, so it seems reasonable to be able to identify yourself as belonging to that community. For instance, if you're part of the YIMBY movement, and you're involved in a significant way (eg. are a leader, gives talks, and contributes financial resources), it seems reasonable for you to mention that at least occasionally. It just so happens that the community that SBF is involved with is called "effective altruism", so if you're a member of the community you get called an "effective altruist". Given what they do, I think the naming is entirely reasonable and nothing cynical is happening.
- cwkoss 4y ago
  It's certainly true at all EAs aren't bad people. I'm just arguing that self identifying EAs are disproportionately bad people due to the attraction they have towards being labeled as such. Good EAs are less likely to be vocal about the label.
  - gruez 4y ago
    > I'm just arguing that self identifying EAs are disproportionately bad people Is there evidence backing this assertion? Or are we just going with "SBF was an effective alturist, SBF was bad, therefore self identifying EAs are disproportionately bad people"?

by cwkoss 4y ago

gruez 4y ago

>EA may be an interesting perspective, but I'm immediately wary of anyone who self-identifies as an "effective altruist". The logic makes sense on the surface. For instance, if someone self-identifies himself as a philanthropist/altruist and makes an effort to make that known I'll be a bit suspicious. However, effective altruism is a movement/community, so it seems reasonable to be able to identify yourself as belonging to that community. For instance, if you're part of the YIMBY movement, and you're involved in a significant way (eg. are a leader, gives talks, and contributes financial resources), it seems reasonable for you to mention that at least occasionally. It just so happens that the community that SBF is involved with is called "effective altruism", so if you're a member of the community you get called an "effective altruist". Given what they do, I think the naming is entirely reasonable and nothing cynical is happening.

cwkoss 4y ago
It's certainly true at all EAs aren't bad people. I'm just arguing that self identifying EAs are disproportionately bad people due to the attraction they have towards being labeled as such. Good EAs are less likely to be vocal about the label.
- gruez 4y ago
  > I'm just arguing that self identifying EAs are disproportionately bad people Is there evidence backing this assertion? Or are we just going with "SBF was an effective alturist, SBF was bad, therefore self identifying EAs are disproportionately bad people"?