My understanding is that Anthony agrees that there are still reasons to do things:
First, the unawareness argument doesnât imply that ânothing we do mattersâ all things considered. It only implies that impartial altruism, or any very far-reaching value system, isnât action-guiding. Other values and moral norms still matter to us, for example, rules like avoiding dishonesty or virtues like compassion. These can be action-guiding even if weâre clueless about total consequences.
I think your justification âbecause all of my attempts to do good actually end up being a net positive for me in terms of my own self-interestâ doesnât disagree with his conclusion?
As I said, Iâm accepting the argument (thatâs why I chose option 3!).
Option 3: Offer a constructive response
Accept the argumentâand tell us what the impartial altruist should do anyway. Grant the conclusion, but offer a constructive response: defend a solution Anthony considers and rejects (e.g. wagering), or propose something entirely original.[3]I
I indeed canât find any impartial-altruistic rational reasons to pick one course of action over another if I reason at a cosmic scale, but my response explained why people should do effective altruism anyway (self-interest)! đ
NB: I only read the summary by Toby and didnât engage with the larger body of posts from Anthony and others, so I most probably am missing crucial nuance TBF!
About the small portion of text you quoted (could you please let me know where itâs from btw? EDIT: Just found it on your link, will read full text later!): Iâm not sure I understand that compassion or avoiding dishonesty are different from Effective Altruism. To me the latter is the same as the formers but applied at a slightly different scale (e.g. Effective Altruism advocates being compassionate about all humans on the planet equally instead of say, preferring to show more compassion to those who are local to us). Therefore I also donât understand the point about compassion or avoiding dishonesty being able to act as action-guiding principles Vs EA not being able to. Finally I donât really understand what âaction-guidingâ means as a conceptâfrom your text it seems it has a precise definition which Iâd love to learn more about.
My understanding is that Anthony agrees that there are still reasons to do things:
I think your justification âbecause all of my attempts to do good actually end up being a net positive for me in terms of my own self-interestâ doesnât disagree with his conclusion?
Thanks Ben!
As I said, Iâm accepting the argument (thatâs why I chose option 3!).
I indeed canât find any impartial-altruistic rational reasons to pick one course of action over another if I reason at a cosmic scale, but my response explained why people should do effective altruism anyway (self-interest)! đ
NB: I only read the summary by Toby and didnât engage with the larger body of posts from Anthony and others, so I most probably am missing crucial nuance TBF!
About the small portion of text you quoted (could you please let me know where itâs from btw? EDIT: Just found it on your link, will read full text later!): Iâm not sure I understand that compassion or avoiding dishonesty are different from Effective Altruism. To me the latter is the same as the formers but applied at a slightly different scale (e.g. Effective Altruism advocates being compassionate about all humans on the planet equally instead of say, preferring to show more compassion to those who are local to us). Therefore I also donât understand the point about compassion or avoiding dishonesty being able to act as action-guiding principles Vs EA not being able to. Finally I donât really understand what âaction-guidingâ means as a conceptâfrom your text it seems it has a precise definition which Iâd love to learn more about.