(trying to focus my comments on particular thing here, instead of a long comment[1] trying to cover everything. Also, I again want to thank the authors for breaking down the original post and continuing the object-level discussion)
EA and Leftist Philosophy: DĂŠtente or Decimation?
As noted by others, while this particular section of DEAB suggests that EA would be institutionally and epistemically improved by accepting more âdeep critiquesâ, it does not suggest EA accept these critiques from any direction. Iâd be very surprised if the authors thought that EA would be improved by seriously considering and updating on the thoughts of our right-wing critiques.[2]
In this post in particular, the relevant claims are:
EA is more likely to listen to a critique that is not critical of capitalism
The main approach to politics in EA is âliberal-technocraticâ
It suggets âThe Good it Promises, the Harm it Doesâ as an example of âdeep critiqueâ that EA should engage with. Most, if not all perspectives in said book, criticise EA from an anti-capitalist perspecitve.
EA should âseriously engage with critiques of capitalist modernityâ
EA funders should âenthusiastically fund deep critiquesâ (which I would assume take the form of the anticapitalist approaches above)
So where I agree with this line of thinking is that I think there is a strong ideological divide between modern leftism and current EA (because I think EA is an ideology is some respects, not just a question, and thatâs ok). I think intellectual and public leftism is probably the largest source of criticism at the moment, and likely to be so in the future, and it is definitely worth EA investigating why that is, finding the key cruxes of disagreement, and making it clear where we think we can learn and where we reject leftist arguments and the key reasons why.
However, one of the reasons why I have ended up as an EA is that I find modern leftist epistemology and theodicy to be lacking. In disputes between, say, Hickel and Roser or Hickel and Smith, Iâm not on the formerâs sideâI think his arguments (as far as I understand them) are lacking. The same go for anticapitalist critics who do post on the Forum.[3] I think this is because their arguments are bad, not because Iâm pattern-matching or hiding behind âbad-epistemicsâ.
Take Craryâs âAgainst Effective Altruismââan example I think ConcernedEAs would agree is a âdeep critiqueâ. Hereâs an example of what she has to say about EA:
EA as a movement benefits from its embrace of those who âearn to giveâ, accumulating wealth in the economic arena that it leaves critically untouched. It is a textbook case of moral corruption.
Firstly, In terms of the institutional reforms suggested, I canât think of any movement than would give âenthusiastic fundingâ to critics who call the movement morally corrupt. Secondly, I donât think Crary really argues for rejecting EA in the piece. She frames the critiques as âinstitutionalâ, âphilosophicalâ, and âcompositeâ - but doesnât really argue for it that much. Plenty of other authors are mentioned and referenced, but the article seems to me to assume that the anticapitalist critiques are correct and proceeding from there. Finally, I donât think thereâs much middle ground to be had between the worldviews of Crary and, say, MacAskill or Singer. Indeed, she ends the article by saying that for EA to accept the critiques she believes in, EA would cease to exist. And here I do agree. What EA should do, in my opinion, is explain clearly and convincingly why Crary is completely wrong.
In conclusion, I do agree that there is a lot of value in exploring the leftist critiques of EA, and I think there has been good EA work to reach out to leftist critics.[4] But I think the ConcernedEAs authors who are strongly sympathetic to these leftist critiques have the responsibility to spark the object-level debates rather than suggesting they be adopted for meta-level concerns, and those in EA who disagree with them should provide good reasons for doing so, and not hide behind accusations of âbad epistemicsâ or âwokeness run amokâ.
(trying to focus my comments on particular thing here, instead of a long comment[1] trying to cover everything. Also, I again want to thank the authors for breaking down the original post and continuing the object-level discussion)
EA and Leftist Philosophy: DĂŠtente or Decimation?
As noted by others, while this particular section of DEAB suggests that EA would be institutionally and epistemically improved by accepting more âdeep critiquesâ, it does not suggest EA accept these critiques from any direction. Iâd be very surprised if the authors thought that EA would be improved by seriously considering and updating on the thoughts of our right-wing critiques.[2]
In this post in particular, the relevant claims are:
EA is more likely to listen to a critique that is not critical of capitalism
The main approach to politics in EA is âliberal-technocraticâ
It suggets âThe Good it Promises, the Harm it Doesâ as an example of âdeep critiqueâ that EA should engage with. Most, if not all perspectives in said book, criticise EA from an anti-capitalist perspecitve.
EA should âseriously engage with critiques of capitalist modernityâ
EA funders should âenthusiastically fund deep critiquesâ (which I would assume take the form of the anticapitalist approaches above)
So where I agree with this line of thinking is that I think there is a strong ideological divide between modern leftism and current EA (because I think EA is an ideology is some respects, not just a question, and thatâs ok). I think intellectual and public leftism is probably the largest source of criticism at the moment, and likely to be so in the future, and it is definitely worth EA investigating why that is, finding the key cruxes of disagreement, and making it clear where we think we can learn and where we reject leftist arguments and the key reasons why.
However, one of the reasons why I have ended up as an EA is that I find modern leftist epistemology and theodicy to be lacking. In disputes between, say, Hickel and Roser or Hickel and Smith, Iâm not on the formerâs sideâI think his arguments (as far as I understand them) are lacking. The same go for anticapitalist critics who do post on the Forum.[3] I think this is because their arguments are bad, not because Iâm pattern-matching or hiding behind âbad-epistemicsâ.
Take Craryâs âAgainst Effective Altruismââan example I think ConcernedEAs would agree is a âdeep critiqueâ. Hereâs an example of what she has to say about EA:
Firstly, In terms of the institutional reforms suggested, I canât think of any movement than would give âenthusiastic fundingâ to critics who call the movement morally corrupt. Secondly, I donât think Crary really argues for rejecting EA in the piece. She frames the critiques as âinstitutionalâ, âphilosophicalâ, and âcompositeâ - but doesnât really argue for it that much. Plenty of other authors are mentioned and referenced, but the article seems to me to assume that the anticapitalist critiques are correct and proceeding from there. Finally, I donât think thereâs much middle ground to be had between the worldviews of Crary and, say, MacAskill or Singer. Indeed, she ends the article by saying that for EA to accept the critiques she believes in, EA would cease to exist. And here I do agree. What EA should do, in my opinion, is explain clearly and convincingly why Crary is completely wrong.
In conclusion, I do agree that there is a lot of value in exploring the leftist critiques of EA, and I think there has been good EA work to reach out to leftist critics.[4] But I think the ConcernedEAs authors who are strongly sympathetic to these leftist critiques have the responsibility to spark the object-level debates rather than suggesting they be adopted for meta-level concerns, and those in EA who disagree with them should provide good reasons for doing so, and not hide behind accusations of âbad epistemicsâ or âwokeness run amokâ.
Edit: It still became a long comment đ Iâm trying my best ok!
I especially have in mind Richard Hananiaâs recent critique, which I thoroughly disagreed with
I actually think that last post is really well-written, even if I do disagree with it
See this podcast from Garrison Lovely, and also this one by Rabbithole