4 ms·

Donate more, and donate to charities that are effective (use more of the donations for actions directly related to their mission statement instead of marketing/

Donate more, and donate to charities that are effective (use more of the donations for actions directly related to their mission statement instead of marketing/admin/etc). The rest is interpretation, as they say. That's all "EA" is. I won't speculate on why some people are so insistent that we must throw the baby out with the bathwater immediately, declare EA Dead, and forget it ever existed.

tekla 3y ago
Because its associated with bad things. And associated with bad things makes the thing bad too. No other thinking required
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > No other thinking required I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not here. EA is just a slogan and a group of people. If those people are doing (significant amounts of) bad things in the name of EA, associating them, then EA is bad. The slogan doesn't override the people. The people doing EA are EA. Trying to make it more complicated is overthinking it. What you said is correct.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> Donate more, and donate to charities that are effective (use more of the donations for actions directly related to their mission statement instead of marketing/admin/etc). The rest is interpretation, as they say. That's all "EA" is. The problem with EA, isn’t that it advocates doing that - there are a lot of moral frameworks that advocate that, but it creates an ethical framework that pretty much focuses solely on that and ignores the social and moral implications of the person’s behavior outside this. So no matter how many people the person is screwing over in their pursuit of wealth, no matter how many social rules they are breaking, as long as they are donating, they are fine. It basically reduces morality to a cash flow problem and ignores the other moral and social implications of the (rich or wannabe rich) person’s pursuits and actions.
- adamnemecek 3y ago
  We’ve been through this before haha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
    If you study history, it is surprising how many “new” ideas are just recycled. Even in computer science, many “new” ideas are recycled from the 60s and 70s.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    I would say that the big issue with indulgences, as they became exploited, was that they weren't in exchange for doing "effective" good. Fake charity is a much bigger problem than an impure motive for giving.
- cwillu 3y ago
  You're describing a failure mode of “earning to give”, and one that is explicitly called out as a trap to avoid. This is like saying christians are immoral because they can sin as much as they want as long as they go to confession afterwards.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > no matter how many people the person is screwing over Are you sure? That sounds like a stupidly obvious factor to overlook.

tekla 3y ago

Because its associated with bad things. And associated with bad things makes the thing bad too. No other thinking required

Dylan16807 3y ago
> No other thinking required I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not here. EA is just a slogan and a group of people. If those people are doing (significant amounts of) bad things in the name of EA, associating them, then EA is bad. The slogan doesn't override the people. The people doing EA are EA. Trying to make it more complicated is overthinking it. What you said is correct.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

> Donate more, and donate to charities that are effective (use more of the donations for actions directly related to their mission statement instead of marketing/admin/etc). The rest is interpretation, as they say. That's all "EA" is. The problem with EA, isn’t that it advocates doing that - there are a lot of moral frameworks that advocate that, but it creates an ethical framework that pretty much focuses solely on that and ignores the social and moral implications of the person’s behavior outside this. So no matter how many people the person is screwing over in their pursuit of wealth, no matter how many social rules they are breaking, as long as they are donating, they are fine. It basically reduces morality to a cash flow problem and ignores the other moral and social implications of the (rich or wannabe rich) person’s pursuits and actions.

adamnemecek 3y ago
We’ve been through this before haha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  If you study history, it is surprising how many “new” ideas are just recycled. Even in computer science, many “new” ideas are recycled from the 60s and 70s.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  I would say that the big issue with indulgences, as they became exploited, was that they weren't in exchange for doing "effective" good. Fake charity is a much bigger problem than an impure motive for giving.
cwillu 3y ago
You're describing a failure mode of “earning to give”, and one that is explicitly called out as a trap to avoid. This is like saying christians are immoral because they can sin as much as they want as long as they go to confession afterwards.
Dylan16807 3y ago
> no matter how many people the person is screwing over Are you sure? That sounds like a stupidly obvious factor to overlook.