3 ms·
ha, got one. Yes it is pretty fun if you're in the right mental state for it, I've just seen so many EA-type rationalists out on the internet proliferating this
by sixo 2y ago
ha, got one. Yes it is pretty fun if you're in the right mental state for it, I've just seen so many EA-type rationalists out on the internet proliferating this worldview, and often pushing it on people who a) don't enjoy it, b) are threatened by it, c) are underequipped to defend themselves rationally against it, that I find myself jumping to defend against it. EA-type utilitarianism, I think, proliferates widely on the internet specifically by "survival bias"—it is easily-argued in text; it looks good on paper. Whereas the "innate" morality of most humans is more based on ground-truth emotional reality; see my other comment for the character of that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42174022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42174022
- sodality2 2y agoI see, and I wholly agree. I'm looking at this from essentially the academic perspective (aka, when I was required to at least question my innate morality). When I saw this blog post, I looked at it in the same way. If you read it as "this charity is more useful than every other charity, we should stop offering soup kitchens, and redirect the funding to the SWP", then I disagree with that interpretation. I don't need or want to rationalize that decision to an EA. But it is a fun thought experiment to discuss.