The reason EA seems like it's a form of utilitarianism is of course the association with the so-called rationalist community. As you note, it's very appealing

The reason EA seems like it's a form of utilitarianism is of course the association with the so-called rationalist community. As you note, it's very appealing to that type of person. This is partly because the math used to rigorously compare consequences seems easy, and partly because utilitarianism has a lot of good places to hide your subjective value judgements. You can apply EA-like concepts with any sort of consequentialist ethics. E.g. the Rawlsan veil of ignorance can work -- would hypothetical-me rather reduce his chance of dying of malaria by X%, or reduce his chance of malnutrition by Y%? It's just harder to explain why you rank one course of action over another, and therefore you're probably not going to be able to centralize the decision making. This isn't because it's somehow unsound[0]. It's because it's harder (though not impossible) to explain with math, and the subjective value judgements are right in your face rather than hidden in concepts like utility functions. [0]- It might be; you might not accept the premise of the veil of ignorance. That's not the reason it seems trickier than the utilitarian version, which has the same problem.