One of the problems with effective altruism (and consequentialism more generally) is that it's quite hard to look at SBF and say definitively that his actions h

One of the problems with effective altruism (and consequentialism more generally) is that it's quite hard to look at SBF and say definitively that his actions had net negative consequences. Maybe his donations saved lives. Maybe anthropic (which he famously funded) will save the world. Maybe by discrediting EA, SBF saved the world from EA fanatics. You could ennumerate hypotheticals like this forever, positive and negative. It's for this reason that we have to rely on intuitive moral feelings or there's no way to confidently say that anything is good or bad. That said, I view EA as a call to think more carefully and analytically about our actions and how they affect the world. There's certainly nothing wrong with that as long as it's not taken to bizarre extremes.