I’m still not satisfied with the addition of ‘maximize happiness.’ I suspect altruism is more than even that—though the word ‘well-being’ is a step towards compromise.
I can’t speak for other EAs, but I suspect altruists generally have more in common with activists than they do with philanthropists. The former also rejects social norms and seeks to change the world, while the latter is generally accepted within their social circles because they have so much excessive wealth.
Activists are motivated to change the world based on things they dislike about it, and I suspect the same is true for (some) altruists. I am grateful to know that many EAs come from a more positive place, but this was not my experience. It sounds negative and I prefer Will’s definition, but I ended up in EA seeking to make the world more fair. This is only slightly less subjective than being concerned with the “well being” of sentient creatures, and far less appealing. Maybe you could expand on it a bit more?
Many altruists are activists (and vice versa) and many altruists are philanthropists (and vice versa) and some activists are philanthropists. These are not mutually exclusive categories. I also disagree with several claims.
The former also rejects social norms and seeks to change the world, while the latter is generally accepted within their social circles because they have so much excessive wealth.
I think most philanthropists want to change the world (for the better). I think activists vary a lot in how much they accept and reject social norms, and which ones they accept and reject.
I didn’t realize before, but this is actually most interesting to me now that multiple people have challenged the OP. In other words, I agree with the point a few people have made that few active EAs would define EA so narrowly. I must have misconstrued something somewhere.
Admittedly, I know very little about philanthropists, but I imagine they want to change the world to a common degree. Their intentions are pure, but their motivation is minimal. This is a guess, but Warren Buffet stated that the opportunity cost for spending his money elsewhere is extremely low. Generally, I believe that activists tend to be more impassioned.
I identify as an EA, and I certainly relate to activists more than philanthropists, and I had thought that EA marketed itself towards these sorts of people. Regardless, I definitely agree that there is overlap between all three groups.
I am really curious what you think about altruistic motivations v. activist motivations. I know we’ve talked about it before, and I expect you have a different view.
Also, I’m unsure what you meant in the last paragraph. I think we were both saying the same thing. Maybe you missed the “n’t’?
I mean that the movement isn’t claiming that altruism is as simple as where to send your money (though I think we sometimes wrongly simplify the message to be only about donation). Saying it’s not that simple implies that someone else said it was that simple.
Thanks Julia.
I’m still not satisfied with the addition of ‘maximize happiness.’ I suspect altruism is more than even that—though the word ‘well-being’ is a step towards compromise.
I can’t speak for other EAs, but I suspect altruists generally have more in common with activists than they do with philanthropists. The former also rejects social norms and seeks to change the world, while the latter is generally accepted within their social circles because they have so much excessive wealth.
Activists are motivated to change the world based on things they dislike about it, and I suspect the same is true for (some) altruists. I am grateful to know that many EAs come from a more positive place, but this was not my experience. It sounds negative and I prefer Will’s definition, but I ended up in EA seeking to make the world more fair. This is only slightly less subjective than being concerned with the “well being” of sentient creatures, and far less appealing. Maybe you could expand on it a bit more?
Many altruists are activists (and vice versa) and many altruists are philanthropists (and vice versa) and some activists are philanthropists. These are not mutually exclusive categories. I also disagree with several claims.
I think most philanthropists want to change the world (for the better). I think activists vary a lot in how much they accept and reject social norms, and which ones they accept and reject.
I didn’t realize before, but this is actually most interesting to me now that multiple people have challenged the OP. In other words, I agree with the point a few people have made that few active EAs would define EA so narrowly. I must have misconstrued something somewhere.
Admittedly, I know very little about philanthropists, but I imagine they want to change the world to a common degree. Their intentions are pure, but their motivation is minimal. This is a guess, but Warren Buffet stated that the opportunity cost for spending his money elsewhere is extremely low. Generally, I believe that activists tend to be more impassioned.
I identify as an EA, and I certainly relate to activists more than philanthropists, and I had thought that EA marketed itself towards these sorts of people. Regardless, I definitely agree that there is overlap between all three groups.
I am really curious what you think about altruistic motivations v. activist motivations. I know we’ve talked about it before, and I expect you have a different view.
Also, I’m unsure what you meant in the last paragraph. I think we were both saying the same thing. Maybe you missed the “n’t’?
I mean that the movement isn’t claiming that altruism is as simple as where to send your money (though I think we sometimes wrongly simplify the message to be only about donation). Saying it’s not that simple implies that someone else said it was that simple.
I’m surprised how personally you took that. I was just speaking generally, though you did say it better.