“Rather than “translating” effective altruism into new languages, it seems better to think in terms of creating a local movement from scratch that’s inspired by the ideas of effective altruism, but is highly adapted to the local context. Imagine that Will MacAskill was Chinese: then what would he have written?”
...
“Initial efforts to expand effective altruism into new languages should focus on making strong connections with a small number of people who have relevant expertise, via person-to-person outreach instead of mass media.”
我自己也突然意识到接触的书籍和理论好像都是西方化的，你提到了一个非常重要的问题！
在我的认知里，中式哲学好像没有“effective altruism”类似的说法，像你提到的墨子应该是政治学家，但是他重要的地方是提出了对儒家思想的反驳。直到现在普遍的意识还是被儒家文化限制了，中国人像林语堂说的一样，其实是以家庭单位的individualism，大家都是看好自己的，很少会想到charity donation或者“有效的帮助别人”这个概念，所以我暂时没有什么书可以推荐的。
我觉得如果你想要了解中国与西方文化的不同可以读一下当代中国文学和政治相关的，比如像徐志摩、林语堂在西方受过教育的文人，或者像鲁迅、莫言、余华写的社会批评。
看到有很多人投反对票你的原帖，我很伤心！
：（
可能悲观的意见是由于这个文章：https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Z95TxtkjHGPq4TAqY/why-not-to-rush-to-translate-effective-altruism-into-other
这是两个有关的报价：
“Rather than “translating” effective altruism into new languages, it seems better to think in terms of creating a local movement from scratch that’s inspired by the ideas of effective altruism, but is highly adapted to the local context. Imagine that Will MacAskill was Chinese: then what would he have written?”
...
“Initial efforts to expand effective altruism into new languages should focus on making strong connections with a small number of people who have relevant expertise, via person-to-person outreach instead of mass media.”
还有，这个论坛评论有重视以上文章的重要性：
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/nEnNgWrnmqn9EcGfY/question-about-contacting-eas-in-china?commentId=f7SKarz3MCKagE3Ek