I find this topic interesting, especially when contemplating my own moral intuitions regarding virtues which often oppose or don’t take into account “cold utilitarian logic”. I found a lot of the arguments to be unpersuasive or not entirely relevant to how I view EA. That said, it was interesting to read, and here are some of my takeaways:
I am generally quite permissive of other people’s different levels of commitment to doing good and acting virtuously when it comes to being involved in EA. I think that this might be problematic if I’m worried about value-drift or presenting a poor image of EA.
I find some analogies between this criticism and some critiques of foreign aid.
They both claim that the root cause is not solved (egoism / corruption).
Both EA claims/efforts and foreign aid are susceptible to exploitation by self-interested people.
I feel that common sense morality is indignant of, say, people working toward reducing animal suffering and yet consuming animal products. This results in lower credibility, and many people might take this apparent lack of moral integrity as a sign of one not actually caring about animals and thus they discount their work. It is especially problematic given that many such cases don’t leave room for high-fidelity discussion.
I think that this is actually a good reason for leaders in the community to adopt practices that seem benevolent (like kindness, frugality, veganism, personally reducing emissions).
However, this is also a great reason to avoid these kinds of practices if one can actually do much more good otherwise and be able to show it. This is because people can also be persuaded to do good more effectively.
Some people in EA work on moral circle expansion. Perhaps it would also be important to work on improving other societal virtues.
I find this topic interesting, especially when contemplating my own moral intuitions regarding virtues which often oppose or don’t take into account “cold utilitarian logic”. I found a lot of the arguments to be unpersuasive or not entirely relevant to how I view EA. That said, it was interesting to read, and here are some of my takeaways:
I am generally quite permissive of other people’s different levels of commitment to doing good and acting virtuously when it comes to being involved in EA. I think that this might be problematic if I’m worried about value-drift or presenting a poor image of EA.
I find some analogies between this criticism and some critiques of foreign aid.
They both claim that the root cause is not solved (egoism / corruption).
Both EA claims/efforts and foreign aid are susceptible to exploitation by self-interested people.
I feel that common sense morality is indignant of, say, people working toward reducing animal suffering and yet consuming animal products. This results in lower credibility, and many people might take this apparent lack of moral integrity as a sign of one not actually caring about animals and thus they discount their work. It is especially problematic given that many such cases don’t leave room for high-fidelity discussion.
I think that this is actually a good reason for leaders in the community to adopt practices that seem benevolent (like kindness, frugality, veganism, personally reducing emissions).
However, this is also a great reason to avoid these kinds of practices if one can actually do much more good otherwise and be able to show it. This is because people can also be persuaded to do good more effectively.
Some people in EA work on moral circle expansion. Perhaps it would also be important to work on improving other societal virtues.