Executive summary: The post explores the author’s grappling with Peter Singer’s moral premises foundational to effective altruism, highlighting personal struggles with counterintuitive implications of those principles and their impact on familial and patriotic values.
Key points:
The author appreciates the framework of effective altruism for its emphasis on impartiality, cause prioritization, and cost-effectiveness, which motivated their participation in the Arete Fellowship.
Singer’s principle that “pain is bad and equal regardless of who experiences it” challenges the author’s patriotic and familial instincts, particularly when considering the ethical choice between saving one’s own child or multiple children abroad with the same amount of resources.
The principle stating we are responsible for our actions and inactions causes discomfort for the author when considering its application to others, raising ethical questions about judgment and moral obligations.
Singer’s view on the moral equivalence in taking lives, based on individual characteristics rather than race, sex, or species, extends to controversial comparisons, such as between an anencephalic infant and a baboon, challenging the author’s intuitions about human and animal lives.
The author is conflicted by Singer’s insistence on ethical consistency even in edge cases, which contradicts their emotional responses and leads to a broader reflection on the nature of moral judgments and biases.
While the practical applications of effective altruism resonate with the author, they find it crucial for the EA community to also engage deeply with its philosophical underpinnings to ensure a comprehensive understanding of its principles.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The post explores the author’s grappling with Peter Singer’s moral premises foundational to effective altruism, highlighting personal struggles with counterintuitive implications of those principles and their impact on familial and patriotic values.
Key points:
The author appreciates the framework of effective altruism for its emphasis on impartiality, cause prioritization, and cost-effectiveness, which motivated their participation in the Arete Fellowship.
Singer’s principle that “pain is bad and equal regardless of who experiences it” challenges the author’s patriotic and familial instincts, particularly when considering the ethical choice between saving one’s own child or multiple children abroad with the same amount of resources.
The principle stating we are responsible for our actions and inactions causes discomfort for the author when considering its application to others, raising ethical questions about judgment and moral obligations.
Singer’s view on the moral equivalence in taking lives, based on individual characteristics rather than race, sex, or species, extends to controversial comparisons, such as between an anencephalic infant and a baboon, challenging the author’s intuitions about human and animal lives.
The author is conflicted by Singer’s insistence on ethical consistency even in edge cases, which contradicts their emotional responses and leads to a broader reflection on the nature of moral judgments and biases.
While the practical applications of effective altruism resonate with the author, they find it crucial for the EA community to also engage deeply with its philosophical underpinnings to ensure a comprehensive understanding of its principles.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.