First of all thank you for your comment. What I describe here is not about Effective Altruism, but about utilitarianism. And it is more about how to rule a country that about how to allocate charitable funds.
In my view this is the only possible political framework for an utilitarian, but disagreements on interpersonal utility comparisons, and in “Science” can lead to substantial differences on optimal policies that can escalate into differences on the optimal decision making procedures.
This is quite theoretical, but in my view this is the way to think about the “general interest” and the Government.
Right, I was just looking for some ways to apply it to EA. I figured you were recommending that post-political-ness become a more explicit part of EA or more frequently used by EAs in their public or private evaluation of policy.
I agree this sort of loose framework of sentence maxing should be used by EAs when evaluating policy interventions, and it seems to be used, so I agree it should continue. And then on top of that, if someone EA-aligned wanted a potentially high-impact way to spend time advocating for post-political views, I would recommend the forum project.
When you say this is the only possible political framework for a utilitarian—if you’re referring to sentience maxing with whatever tools available, I agree. If you’re saying utilitarians should ignore the tools of political culture entirely and their instrumental uses, including supporting the rights and other deontological rules that utilitarians sometimes find justified, then I would disagree for the reasons stated.
For example, assuming democracy is the most effective government form, I would want some amount of pro-democracy emotional content in K-12 schools and a broader social penalty for advancing anti-democratic ideas like reducing voter eligibility/access, in order to safeguard it against short-term cultural shifts and meddling. I think hard-coding things that we are pretty sure are good or bad into culture is wise, so that we avoid having to rehash the same issues generation to generation. In this case “dogma” is basically just “accepting a moral conviction that has been baked into your culture through historical experience,” which is often quite useful.
If you’re saying that the economic system you outlined (which if I understand correctly is limited to a private market and wealth transfers, implying no public goods) is the only defensible one, then that’s also a separate debate we could have. I’m not sure if this is what you’re referring to when you say this is the only possible political framework.
Oh, of course en the real world, political action is unfortunately based on expectations manipulation, mood affiliation, and any utilitarian shall understand the logic of activism.
But it is important to have an idea of what we want, and in the difference between value and fact, and between policy and institutional mechanism.
This kind of idealization is in my view for utilitarians what “class struggle” is for marxists, or “property” is for libertarians.
Unlike them, our ideal construction is truly fundamental.
An interesting side effect is that “deontology” can be utilitarian: often objective rules are the best device to obtain maximum welfare.
In fact, good rules are the main product a good utilitarian framework!
First of all thank you for your comment. What I describe here is not about Effective Altruism, but about utilitarianism. And it is more about how to rule a country that about how to allocate charitable funds.
In my view this is the only possible political framework for an utilitarian, but disagreements on interpersonal utility comparisons, and in “Science” can lead to substantial differences on optimal policies that can escalate into differences on the optimal decision making procedures.
This is quite theoretical, but in my view this is the way to think about the “general interest” and the Government.
Right, I was just looking for some ways to apply it to EA. I figured you were recommending that post-political-ness become a more explicit part of EA or more frequently used by EAs in their public or private evaluation of policy.
I agree this sort of loose framework of sentence maxing should be used by EAs when evaluating policy interventions, and it seems to be used, so I agree it should continue. And then on top of that, if someone EA-aligned wanted a potentially high-impact way to spend time advocating for post-political views, I would recommend the forum project.
When you say this is the only possible political framework for a utilitarian—if you’re referring to sentience maxing with whatever tools available, I agree. If you’re saying utilitarians should ignore the tools of political culture entirely and their instrumental uses, including supporting the rights and other deontological rules that utilitarians sometimes find justified, then I would disagree for the reasons stated.
For example, assuming democracy is the most effective government form, I would want some amount of pro-democracy emotional content in K-12 schools and a broader social penalty for advancing anti-democratic ideas like reducing voter eligibility/access, in order to safeguard it against short-term cultural shifts and meddling. I think hard-coding things that we are pretty sure are good or bad into culture is wise, so that we avoid having to rehash the same issues generation to generation. In this case “dogma” is basically just “accepting a moral conviction that has been baked into your culture through historical experience,” which is often quite useful.
If you’re saying that the economic system you outlined (which if I understand correctly is limited to a private market and wealth transfers, implying no public goods) is the only defensible one, then that’s also a separate debate we could have. I’m not sure if this is what you’re referring to when you say this is the only possible political framework.
Oh, of course en the real world, political action is unfortunately based on expectations manipulation, mood affiliation, and any utilitarian shall understand the logic of activism.
But it is important to have an idea of what we want, and in the difference between value and fact, and between policy and institutional mechanism.
This kind of idealization is in my view for utilitarians what “class struggle” is for marxists, or “property” is for libertarians.
Unlike them, our ideal construction is truly fundamental.
An interesting side effect is that “deontology” can be utilitarian: often objective rules are the best device to obtain maximum welfare.
In fact, good rules are the main product a good utilitarian framework!
Agreed on all counts.
Well, of course, “my opinion” is not really mine. This is textbook political economy , I hope well summarized…