3 ms·

why does involvement with EA imply being ethically challenged? i’m personally not involved, but on its face it seems better than not doing any kind of charitabl

by skavi 2mo ago

why does involvement with EA imply being ethically challenged? i’m personally not involved, but on its face it seems better than not doing any kind of charitable work.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
> why does involvement with EA imply being ethically challenged? Because almost everyone prominent in the movement has had some combination of lack of judgment and morals. There various terms for rationally pursuing philanthropy; associating with effective altruism involves embracing its ideas, people and culture.
- wbl 2mo ago
  And yet they do more good than the moral critics do.
  - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
    > yet they do more good than the moral critics do Going to need a good source for that crowd having done more good than the frauds of even just their most-notorious members. Masquerading as an altruist to justify massive management fees for running a fund of concentrated, leveraged positions is one of the oldest lipsticks on financial pigs.
  - glitchc 2mo ago
    Moral critics save a lot of lives by not doing. Sometimes not doing is the best moral option ex. I will not kill or I will not exploit. And it does not come cheap. Someone who says "I will not work for Facebook" is taking a stand at the expense of significant personal gain.
- YetAnotherNick 2mo ago
  I think the central finding in EA is donating money while earning good is better than donating time directly for charity. To me it seems correct but controversial for many people(likely because you are maximizing your personal income)
  - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
    > the central finding in EA is donating money while earning good is better than donating time directly for charity EA has many tenets, some of make sense per se, but collectively–particulalry when taking into account that EA isn't just an idea but a movement of people with a distinct culture and track record–probably do more harm than good.
    - YetAnotherNick 2mo ago
      What doesn't make sense? I thought expected wealth optimization was the most controversial thing by far.
      - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
        > What doesn't make sense? Well, for one, the frequency of its members committing mass fraud. Like, if a church preaches kindness and love but its preachers and members are constantly out there murdering people, it's a bit silly to point to the text alone when evaluating the organisation.
        yorwba 2mo ago
        What do you think the frequency of EAs committing mass fraud is? How many cases are you basing that on? What does that imply about the size of the EA movement? Does that number make sense? Like, if a church had 100,000 members, you would indeed expect them to commit a few murders each year. And GiveWell alone claims to have induced 150,000 people to donate... https://www.givewell.org/default/citations#Number_of_donors https://www.givewell.org/default/citations#Number_of_donors
plorkyeran 2mo ago
EA has a few branches of thought. One of them is "I am going to donate $X to charity each year. How do I maximize the good this brings to the world?" This group is sometimes less effective than they'd like to think, but there's no moral problem with it. Another branch is "I make lots of money at a job that's probably making the world a worse place. How do I reframe this to not feel like a bad person?" They do some math and conclude that it's net more good for them to earn a bunch of money and donate some of it than it is to volunteer or it is to work at a job that isn't making the world a worse place. This is an awfully convenient conclusion as it means that all they have to do is pay a tithe and make no real changes to their life. The notion of making money specifically for the sake of funding good things isn't a completely terrible one, but a vocal portion of the people who espouse it are very obviously not primarily motivated by maximizing the good they do.

by skavi 2mo ago

why does involvement with EA imply being ethically challenged? i’m personally not involved, but on its face it seems better than not doing any kind of charitable work.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 2mo ago

> why does involvement with EA imply being ethically challenged? Because almost everyone prominent in the movement has had some combination of lack of judgment and morals. There various terms for rationally pursuing philanthropy; associating with effective altruism involves embracing its ideas, people and culture.

wbl 2mo ago
And yet they do more good than the moral critics do.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
  > yet they do more good than the moral critics do Going to need a good source for that crowd having done more good than the frauds of even just their most-notorious members. Masquerading as an altruist to justify massive management fees for running a fund of concentrated, leveraged positions is one of the oldest lipsticks on financial pigs.
- glitchc 2mo ago
  Moral critics save a lot of lives by not doing. Sometimes not doing is the best moral option ex. I will not kill or I will not exploit. And it does not come cheap. Someone who says "I will not work for Facebook" is taking a stand at the expense of significant personal gain.
YetAnotherNick 2mo ago
I think the central finding in EA is donating money while earning good is better than donating time directly for charity. To me it seems correct but controversial for many people(likely because you are maximizing your personal income)
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
  > the central finding in EA is donating money while earning good is better than donating time directly for charity EA has many tenets, some of make sense per se, but collectively–particulalry when taking into account that EA isn't just an idea but a movement of people with a distinct culture and track record–probably do more harm than good.
  - YetAnotherNick 2mo ago
    What doesn't make sense? I thought expected wealth optimization was the most controversial thing by far.
    - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
      > What doesn't make sense? Well, for one, the frequency of its members committing mass fraud. Like, if a church preaches kindness and love but its preachers and members are constantly out there murdering people, it's a bit silly to point to the text alone when evaluating the organisation.
      - yorwba 2mo ago
        What do you think the frequency of EAs committing mass fraud is? How many cases are you basing that on? What does that imply about the size of the EA movement? Does that number make sense? Like, if a church had 100,000 members, you would indeed expect them to commit a few murders each year. And GiveWell alone claims to have induced 150,000 people to donate... https://www.givewell.org/default/citations#Number_of_donors https://www.givewell.org/default/citations#Number_of_donors

plorkyeran 2mo ago

EA has a few branches of thought. One of them is "I am going to donate $X to charity each year. How do I maximize the good this brings to the world?" This group is sometimes less effective than they'd like to think, but there's no moral problem with it. Another branch is "I make lots of money at a job that's probably making the world a worse place. How do I reframe this to not feel like a bad person?" They do some math and conclude that it's net more good for them to earn a bunch of money and donate some of it than it is to volunteer or it is to work at a job that isn't making the world a worse place. This is an awfully convenient conclusion as it means that all they have to do is pay a tithe and make no real changes to their life. The notion of making money specifically for the sake of funding good things isn't a completely terrible one, but a vocal portion of the people who espouse it are very obviously not primarily motivated by maximizing the good they do.