3 ms·

The argument is really simple. To restate: Why should I trust my (or other people's) ability to act to maximize long term good when I (or other people) aren't

by slibhb 4y ago

The argument is really simple. To restate: Why should I trust my (or other people's) ability to act to maximize long term good when I (or other people) aren't smart enough to avoid landmines like FTX?

gruez 4y ago
1. Why should you trust Newton's works (eg. theory of gravity or calculus) when he isn't smart enough to avoid landmines like the south sea bubble[1]? 2. My previous comment asserts that SBF/FTX was reasonably clean prior to the collapse. If someone seemed reasonably clean, but then it turned out that he was a Bad Person or whatever, should everyone associated with that person be chastised for not being "smart enough to avoid landmines"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Knighthood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Knighthood
- slibhb 4y ago
  Simpler? A premise of EA is that people can make choices that maximize the good in the long run. Events like this should make us doubt that premise. The proponents of EA can't do it. Who can? I would say: no one, and serious moral philosophies should take that into account.
  - gruez 4y ago
    1. I don't think it's a premise of EA that you can predict outcomes 100% of the time. Thus the fact that SBF failed to predict something isn't some sort of fatal blow you think it is 2. Even if we accept your conclusion, what does that mean in practice? Wikipedia describes effective altruism as: >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". Should we not use evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible? Should we revert back to donating based on whatever makes us feel fuzzy? It's easy to dunk on something because it supposedly failed, but what's your proposed alternative?
    - slibhb 4y ago
      I think reason and empiricism are useful tools. But so are intuition, deontological ethics (thou shalt/thou shalt not), and adherence to tradition. I don't think we can do without any of these things and EA seriously overrates reason and empiricism.

by slibhb 4y ago

gruez 4y ago

1. Why should you trust Newton's works (eg. theory of gravity or calculus) when he isn't smart enough to avoid landmines like the south sea bubble[1]? 2. My previous comment asserts that SBF/FTX was reasonably clean prior to the collapse. If someone seemed reasonably clean, but then it turned out that he was a Bad Person or whatever, should everyone associated with that person be chastised for not being "smart enough to avoid landmines"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Knighthood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Knighthood

slibhb 4y ago
Simpler? A premise of EA is that people can make choices that maximize the good in the long run. Events like this should make us doubt that premise. The proponents of EA can't do it. Who can? I would say: no one, and serious moral philosophies should take that into account.
- gruez 4y ago
  1. I don't think it's a premise of EA that you can predict outcomes 100% of the time. Thus the fact that SBF failed to predict something isn't some sort of fatal blow you think it is 2. Even if we accept your conclusion, what does that mean in practice? Wikipedia describes effective altruism as: >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". Should we not use evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible? Should we revert back to donating based on whatever makes us feel fuzzy? It's easy to dunk on something because it supposedly failed, but what's your proposed alternative?
  - slibhb 4y ago
    I think reason and empiricism are useful tools. But so are intuition, deontological ethics (thou shalt/thou shalt not), and adherence to tradition. I don't think we can do without any of these things and EA seriously overrates reason and empiricism.