As EA as a movement has grown so far, the community appears to converge upon a rationalization process whereby most of us have realized what is centrally morally important is the experiences of well-being of a relatively wide breadth of moral patients, and the relatively equal moral weight assigned to well-being of each moral patient. The difference between SI and those who focus on AIA is primarily their differing estimates of the expected value of far-future in terms of average or total well-being. Among the examples you provided, it seems some worldviews are more amenable to the rationalization process which lends itself to consequentialism and EA. Many community members were egalitarians and libertarians who find common cause now in trying to figure out if to focus on AIA or MCE. I think your point is important in that ultimately advocating for this type of values spreading could be bad. However what appears to be an extreme amount of diversity could end up looking less fraught in a competition among values as divergent worldviews converge on similar goals.
Since different types of worldviews, like any amenable to aggregate consequentialist frameworks, can collate around a single goal of something like MCE. The relevance of your point, then, would hinge upon how universal MCE really is or can be across worldviews, relative to other types of values, such that it wouldn’t clash with many worldviews in a values-spreading contest. This is a matter of debate I haven’t thought of. It seems an important way to frame solutions to the challenge to Jacy’s point you raise.
As EA as a movement has grown so far, the community appears to converge upon a rationalization process whereby most of us have realized what is centrally morally important is the experiences of well-being of a relatively wide breadth of moral patients, and the relatively equal moral weight assigned to well-being of each moral patient. The difference between SI and those who focus on AIA is primarily their differing estimates of the expected value of far-future in terms of average or total well-being. Among the examples you provided, it seems some worldviews are more amenable to the rationalization process which lends itself to consequentialism and EA. Many community members were egalitarians and libertarians who find common cause now in trying to figure out if to focus on AIA or MCE. I think your point is important in that ultimately advocating for this type of values spreading could be bad. However what appears to be an extreme amount of diversity could end up looking less fraught in a competition among values as divergent worldviews converge on similar goals.
Since different types of worldviews, like any amenable to aggregate consequentialist frameworks, can collate around a single goal of something like MCE. The relevance of your point, then, would hinge upon how universal MCE really is or can be across worldviews, relative to other types of values, such that it wouldn’t clash with many worldviews in a values-spreading contest. This is a matter of debate I haven’t thought of. It seems an important way to frame solutions to the challenge to Jacy’s point you raise.