Strongly upvoted. Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response.
Utilitarianism / widening of the moral circle is very similar to ordinary lefty egalitarianism. Don’t lose sight of that just because some branches of the left don’t think some particular EA method are the best possible way to save the world, and cite Failure to Challenge the System as the reason.
At least one leftist critique of EA has made the case while leftist political movements and EA can find common ground in the ideals shared between egalitarianism and utilitarianism, through an egalitarian lens, the framing of altruism should be seen by all leftists as problematic. From “5 Problems with Effective Altruism”, by Connor Woodman, published in Novara Media in June 2016:
4. Solidarity is a better moral framework than altruism.
‘Aid’ has paternalistic undertones. Instead, we should be looking to support and join in transnational solidarity with movements in the west and Global South: indigenous peoples, landless peasants, precarious garment workers. As Monique Deveaux puts it: “By failing to see the poor as actual or prospective agents of justice [EA’s approaches] risk ignoring the root political causes of, and best remedies for, entrenched poverty.”
The best way to show solidarity is to strike at the heart of global inequality in our own land. There are an array of solidarity groups that seek to change western foreign policy and support modern-day national liberation movements. There are also variouswestern NGOs which seek to injure the production of structural injustice in the west.
Words like solidarity – along with class, imperialism and exploitation – are scrubbed from the EA lexicon. Perhaps they should relaunch as Effective Solidarity.
“The System” is the power structures that emerged thereby. It includes concepts of private property, slavery, marriage (which was generally a form of slavery), social control of reproduction, social control of sex, caste, class, racism, etc—all mechanisms ultimately meant to justify the power held by the powerful. [...]
Despite resource scarcity declining due to tech advance, the bulk of human societies are still operating off those neolithic power hierarchies, and the attending harmful structures and concepts are still in place.
I’m aware of this. Some leftist critics of EA come from an essentially Marxist perspective (i.e., “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”) While not all contemporary Marxists, some leftists take this to a logical conclusion known as class reductionism: the idea other apparent kinds of oppression like racism and sexism are absolutely functions of classism, and so this is the only kind of anti-oppression politics leftists need or should prioritize (in spite of Urban Dictionary’s contention, I’m aware this is a position in fact advanced by some people, although it’s true the accusation as often levelled is unsound). Obviously, there are disagreements over class reductionism within leftism that have nothing to do with EA.
It’s ambiguous whether EA’s leftist critics are primarily talking about ‘systemic change’ in terms of economic class, or through an intersectional lens, and see race, sex, sexuality, or other dimensions of oppression to be just as important as economics in what in EA’s approaches should change. So, my original question could have been formulated as: to what extent is leftist criticism of EA class reductionist, or intersectionalist?
2) Corporate environments maximize profit. Effective altruists maximize impact. As both these things are ultimately geared towards maximizing something that ultimately boils down to a number, effective altruist language often sounds an awful lot like corporate language, and people who “succeed” in effective altruism look and sound an awful lot like people who “succeed” in corporate environments. This breeds a sense of distrust. There’s a long history within leftism of groups of people “selling out”—claiming to try to change the system from inside, but then turning their backs on the powerless once they got power. To some degree, this similarity may create distasteful perceptions of a person’s “value” within effective altruism that is analogous to the distasteful perception of a person’s “value” in a capitalist society. (E.g. capitalist society treats people who are good at earning money as sort of morally superior. Changing “earning money” to “causing impact” can cause similarly wrong thinking)
This is a major source of implicit distrust some leftists would have upon being introduced to EA that has been just below the surface of my thinking on this subject, but I’ve never seen anyone in EA articulate this point so well.
3) EAs to some extent come off as viewing the global poor as “people to help” rather than “people to empower”. The effective altruist themself is viewed as the hero and agent of change, not the people they are helping. There is not that much discussion of the people we are helping as agents of change who might play an important part in their own liberation.
This is essentially the criticism of EA I quoted above from the Novara Media article. You’re right this is a criticism of EA that isn’t inherently leftist, but it is one leftists tend to make most often. It’s one I agree with. I look forward to your writing on it. Please feel free to reach out to me for help in writing it, or for proofreading, editing, or feedback on the draft.
I would strongly recommend not creating a false dichotomy between “EA” and “Leftists”, and setting up these things as somehow opposed or at odds.
I’m aware of this, especially because criticisms of EA by leftists outside EA are confounded by the fact most of the EA community already is leftist, and critics often lack awareness of this. I was just utilizing this frame because it’s one the debate has historically been situated in by how leftist critics of EA have imposed this dichotomy on the conversation between themselves, and the EA community.
Well, I think this is an unhelpful tone. It is, again, setting up EA as something different and better than leftism, rather than a way for us to fulfill our values—even if our values aren’t all exactly the same as each others. This isn’t particular to leftism.
I should have been more specific above. If I didn’t think the was room for cooperation or collaboration between EA and any leftist political movements, I would have said ‘most’ or ‘all’ of them are ineffective, or countereffective, by the lights of overlapping principles of both EA and leftist politics. However, while it may not be most, there are at least some leftist factions I do think EA is qualified in asserting we are better than at providing people with opportunities to pursue their own autonomy and liberation. EA should be, and thus rightly is, open to an earnest and ongoing dialogue with leftist political movements, even some of the most radical among them. Nobody has to take it from me. No less than William MacAskill has said in a closing address at EAG that EA should be open-minded to diverse intellectual, political, and ideological perspectives, and thus should not assume something like Marxism is wrong on principle, in response to what he presumably saw as an insufficient degree of open-mindedness in the very movement he co-founded. Yet EA can’t take that to a conclusion of undermining its own principles.
All variety of leftist ideologies from history are on the upswing today, as politics becomes more polarized, and more people are shifting leftward (and, of course, rightward as well) away from the centre. This has impelled some radical anti-capitalists to spread in the last few years as a propaganda the meme “liberals get the bullet too”. If this was inspired by they ideology of, say, Leninism, then while even if EA shouldn’t moralize in asserting ourselves as “better”, this would be sufficient grounds for EA to deny a positive association with them, even if the line is meant only rhetorically or symbolically. This would be justified even if we would at the same time build bridges to other leftist movements that have shown themselves more conducive to cooperation with EA, such as those Marxists who would be willing to seek common ground with EA. Of course, as there are many ideologies on the Left, including whole families of ideologies totally incompatible with EA, I believe we must be clear about this. Like you yourself said, this isn’t unique to leftists. With regards to the Right, EA could build bridges to conservatism, while nonetheless totally rejecting a notion we might ally ourselves with the family of rightist ideologies we could call “supremacism”.
The goal for EA is not to engage against other ideologies, the goal (to the extent that EA ideas are good and true, which obviously they may not all be) is to become part of the fabric of common sense by which other ideologies operate and try to perpetuate their goals.
To reframe my last point in the context of your words, if EA is to become part of humanity’s fabric of moral common sense, we must recognize there are ideologies that don’t operate under that fabric in the perpetuation of their goals, and go against the grain of both EA and the fabric of common sense. For EA to be worth anything, we must on principle be willing to engage against those ideologies. Of course, EA can and should be willing to ally itself with those leftists who’d seek to expand the circle of moral concern against those who would seek to shrink it to get ahead, no matter what their original ideals were.
This is with regards to political ideologies where either the disagreement over fundamental values, or at least basic facts that inform our moral judgements, are irreconcilable. Yet there will also be political movements with which EA can reconcile, as we would share the same fundamental values, but EA will nonetheless be responsible to criticize or challenge, on the grounds those movements are, in practice, using means or pursuing ends that put them in opposition to those of EA. Current Affairsis a socialist/radical leftist magazine that I believe represents the kinds of leftist movements with which EA can find common ground. Yet when I was seeking the same kind of conciliation you’re seeking in this thread, in another discussion of socialism and effective altruism, kbog impressed upon me the importance of EA’s willingness to push back against those policy prescriptions that would fail to increase well-being as much as could be done simply because of a failure of effectiveness, if not altruistic intent. This conclusion is an unfortunate one even to me, as like myself I believe most of EA wouldn’t want to have engage others in this way, but it may be necessary. I believe our willingness to live up to that responsibility is one of the few things that distinguishes EA at all from any other community predicated on doing good.
What’s more, I’m pretty sure that the widespread acceptance of the basic building block concepts of effective altruism (such as, all people are equally important) are largely due to these leftist social movements. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that EA itself is at least in part among the products of these social movements.
This is with regards to political ideologies where either the disagreement over fundamental values, or at least basic facts that inform our moral judgements, are irreconcilable. Yet there will also be political movements with which EA can reconcile, as we would share the same fundamental values, but EA will nonetheless be responsible to criticize or challenge, on the grounds those movements are, in practice, using means or pursuing ends that put them in opposition to those of EA.
I’m going to critique Connor’s article, and in doing so attempt to “lead by example” in showing how I think critiques of this type are best engaged.
The best way to show solidarity is to strike at the heart of global inequality in our own land.
There’s two problems with Connor’s article, and they both have to do with this sentence.
The less important problem: Who is the “our” in the phrase “our own land”? We’re on the internet, yet Connor just assumes the reader’s allegiances, identity, location, etc. Why is everyone who is not in some particular land implicitly excluded from the conversation? Why is “us” not everyone and “our land” not the Earth?
EA is just as guilty of this, for example when people talk about dollars going farther “overseas”. This is the internet, donors and academics and direct workers and so on live in every country, so where is “local” and where is “overseas”, exactly? For all EA’s globalist ambitious, there is this assumption that people who are actually in a low-middle income country aren’t a part of the conversation. (I agree with everything the “dollar overseas” article actually says, just to be clear. The problem is what the phrasing means about the assumptions of the writers.)
It’s bad when Connor does it and it’s bad when effective altruists do it. Yes, we are writing for a specific audience, but that audience is anyone who takes the time to understand EA ideas and can speak the language written. This is part of what I’m talking about when I say that EA makes some very harmful assumptions about who exactly the agents of change are going to be and the scope of who “effective altruists” potentially are. This problem is not limited to EAs, it is widespread.
The problem isn’t the phrasing, of course, it’s what the phrasing indicates about the writer.
The more important problem, and on this forum, this one is preaching to the choir of course, is 2) You can’t just assume that your solidarity group is the most effective way to do things. Someone still has to do an impact evaluation on your social movement and the flow of talent and resources through that movement, including the particularactivities of any particular organization enacting that movement.
Thus far, Effective Altruists are at the forefront of actually attempting to do this in a transparent way for altruistic organizations. The expansion to policy change is still in its infancy, but …I would not be surprised if impact evaluations of attempting political movements and policy changes begin surfacing at some point.
Nor can you just assume that the best way to do things is local and that people should for some mysterious reason focus on things “in their own lands”. Yes, it may in fact be beneficial to be local at times, but...you have to actually check, you have to have some reasonable account of why this is the most effective thing for you to do.
Once you agree on certain very basic premises (that all humans are roughly equally important moral subjects, that the results of your actions are important, etc) I think all effective altruism really asks is that you attempt process of actually estimating the effect of your use of resources and talentin a rigorous way. This applies regardless of whether your method is philanthropy or collective action.
(What would Connor say if they read my comment? I suspect they would at the very least admit that it was not ideal to implicitly assume their audience like that. But I’d like to think any shrewd supporter of collective action would eventually ask...”Well okay, how do I actually do an impact evaluation of my collective action related plans?” And the result would hopefully be more rigorous and effective collective action, which is more likely to actually accomplish what it was intended to accomplish. I think it’s important that the response deconstructed the false dichotomy between “collective action” and “effective altruism”. The critic should begin asking: “okay, disagreements aside, what might these effective altruist frameworks for evaluating impact do for me?” and “If I think that this other thing is more effective, how can I quantitatively prove it?”)
I think the “less important problem” is related to the “more important problem”. For Connor, even if we grant that collective action is the best thing, the implicitly western “us” limits his vision as to what forms collective action could take, and which social movements people like himself might direct money, talent, or other resources towards. (For EAs, I would speculate that the implicit “us” limits our vision in different, more complicated ways, having to do with under-valuing certain forms of human capital in accomplishing EA goals—Just as Connor just assumes local is better, I think EAs sometimes just assume certain things that EAs tend to assume about exactly who is well placed to make effective impact (and therefore, who needs EA oriented advice, resources, education, training, etc). it’s a subject I’m still thinking about, and it’s the one I hope to write about later.
For all EA’s globalist ambitious, there is this assumption that people who are actually in a low-middle income country aren’t a part of the conversation
Come on, the assumption of the writers is “people looking to us for philanthropy advice are predominantly living in the First World,” and that assumption is correct. (And it’s not a self-fulfilling prophecy, either).
The problem isn’t the phrasing, of course, it’s what the phrasing indicates about the writer.
OK, then how do you know that it doesn’t merely indicate that the writer is good at writing and marketing?
You can’t just assume that your solidarity group is the most effective way to do things. Someone still has to do an impact evaluation on your social movement and the flow of talent and resources through that movement, including the particular activities of any particular organization enacting that movement.
More evaluations and analyses are always nice (and some EA orgs have done that kind of thing, I believe). But their value can be dubious and it may just be a fruitless meta trap. You may think that an EA organization is under-allocating time and money for meta evaluations, but other people are going to disagree, and the reasons for such disagreement need to be properly addressed before this kind of thing can be used as a general criticism.
No one has a monopoly on critiquing people merely for having unexamined assumptions. If you start it, it turns into a game of whataboutism and petty status-seeking where no actually useful progress is made to help with important efforts in the real world. Drop the methodology wars and focus on making actual progress.
I think that’s a little unfair. It wasn’t just have an “unexamined assumption”, he just declared that solidarity was the best way and named some organizations he liked, with no attempt at estimating and quantifying. And he’s critiquing EA, an ideology whose claim to fame is impact evaluations. Can an EA saying “okay that’s great, I agree that could be true… but how about having a quantitative impact evaluation… of any kind, at all, just to help cement the case” really be characterized as “whataboutism” / methodology war?
(I don’t think I agree with your first paragraph, but I do think it’s fair to argue that “but not all readers are in high income countries” is whataboutism until I more fully expand on what I think the practical implications are on impact evaluation. I’m going to save the discussion about the practical problems that arise from being first world centric for a different post, or drop them, depending on how my opinion changes after I’ve put more thought into it.)
Strongly upvoted. Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response.
At least one leftist critique of EA has made the case while leftist political movements and EA can find common ground in the ideals shared between egalitarianism and utilitarianism, through an egalitarian lens, the framing of altruism should be seen by all leftists as problematic. From “5 Problems with Effective Altruism”, by Connor Woodman, published in Novara Media in June 2016:
I’m aware of this. Some leftist critics of EA come from an essentially Marxist perspective (i.e., “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”) While not all contemporary Marxists, some leftists take this to a logical conclusion known as class reductionism: the idea other apparent kinds of oppression like racism and sexism are absolutely functions of classism, and so this is the only kind of anti-oppression politics leftists need or should prioritize (in spite of Urban Dictionary’s contention, I’m aware this is a position in fact advanced by some people, although it’s true the accusation as often levelled is unsound). Obviously, there are disagreements over class reductionism within leftism that have nothing to do with EA.
It’s ambiguous whether EA’s leftist critics are primarily talking about ‘systemic change’ in terms of economic class, or through an intersectional lens, and see race, sex, sexuality, or other dimensions of oppression to be just as important as economics in what in EA’s approaches should change. So, my original question could have been formulated as: to what extent is leftist criticism of EA class reductionist, or intersectionalist?
This is a major source of implicit distrust some leftists would have upon being introduced to EA that has been just below the surface of my thinking on this subject, but I’ve never seen anyone in EA articulate this point so well.
This is essentially the criticism of EA I quoted above from the Novara Media article. You’re right this is a criticism of EA that isn’t inherently leftist, but it is one leftists tend to make most often. It’s one I agree with. I look forward to your writing on it. Please feel free to reach out to me for help in writing it, or for proofreading, editing, or feedback on the draft.
I’m aware of this, especially because criticisms of EA by leftists outside EA are confounded by the fact most of the EA community already is leftist, and critics often lack awareness of this. I was just utilizing this frame because it’s one the debate has historically been situated in by how leftist critics of EA have imposed this dichotomy on the conversation between themselves, and the EA community.
I should have been more specific above. If I didn’t think the was room for cooperation or collaboration between EA and any leftist political movements, I would have said ‘most’ or ‘all’ of them are ineffective, or countereffective, by the lights of overlapping principles of both EA and leftist politics. However, while it may not be most, there are at least some leftist factions I do think EA is qualified in asserting we are better than at providing people with opportunities to pursue their own autonomy and liberation. EA should be, and thus rightly is, open to an earnest and ongoing dialogue with leftist political movements, even some of the most radical among them. Nobody has to take it from me. No less than William MacAskill has said in a closing address at EAG that EA should be open-minded to diverse intellectual, political, and ideological perspectives, and thus should not assume something like Marxism is wrong on principle, in response to what he presumably saw as an insufficient degree of open-mindedness in the very movement he co-founded. Yet EA can’t take that to a conclusion of undermining its own principles.
All variety of leftist ideologies from history are on the upswing today, as politics becomes more polarized, and more people are shifting leftward (and, of course, rightward as well) away from the centre. This has impelled some radical anti-capitalists to spread in the last few years as a propaganda the meme “liberals get the bullet too”. If this was inspired by they ideology of, say, Leninism, then while even if EA shouldn’t moralize in asserting ourselves as “better”, this would be sufficient grounds for EA to deny a positive association with them, even if the line is meant only rhetorically or symbolically. This would be justified even if we would at the same time build bridges to other leftist movements that have shown themselves more conducive to cooperation with EA, such as those Marxists who would be willing to seek common ground with EA. Of course, as there are many ideologies on the Left, including whole families of ideologies totally incompatible with EA, I believe we must be clear about this. Like you yourself said, this isn’t unique to leftists. With regards to the Right, EA could build bridges to conservatism, while nonetheless totally rejecting a notion we might ally ourselves with the family of rightist ideologies we could call “supremacism”.
To reframe my last point in the context of your words, if EA is to become part of humanity’s fabric of moral common sense, we must recognize there are ideologies that don’t operate under that fabric in the perpetuation of their goals, and go against the grain of both EA and the fabric of common sense. For EA to be worth anything, we must on principle be willing to engage against those ideologies. Of course, EA can and should be willing to ally itself with those leftists who’d seek to expand the circle of moral concern against those who would seek to shrink it to get ahead, no matter what their original ideals were.
This is with regards to political ideologies where either the disagreement over fundamental values, or at least basic facts that inform our moral judgements, are irreconcilable. Yet there will also be political movements with which EA can reconcile, as we would share the same fundamental values, but EA will nonetheless be responsible to criticize or challenge, on the grounds those movements are, in practice, using means or pursuing ends that put them in opposition to those of EA. Current Affairs is a socialist/radical leftist magazine that I believe represents the kinds of leftist movements with which EA can find common ground. Yet when I was seeking the same kind of conciliation you’re seeking in this thread, in another discussion of socialism and effective altruism, kbog impressed upon me the importance of EA’s willingness to push back against those policy prescriptions that would fail to increase well-being as much as could be done simply because of a failure of effectiveness, if not altruistic intent. This conclusion is an unfortunate one even to me, as like myself I believe most of EA wouldn’t want to have engage others in this way, but it may be necessary. I believe our willingness to live up to that responsibility is one of the few things that distinguishes EA at all from any other community predicated on doing good.
Agreed.
I’m going to critique Connor’s article, and in doing so attempt to “lead by example” in showing how I think critiques of this type are best engaged.
There’s two problems with Connor’s article, and they both have to do with this sentence.
The less important problem: Who is the “our” in the phrase “our own land”? We’re on the internet, yet Connor just assumes the reader’s allegiances, identity, location, etc. Why is everyone who is not in some particular land implicitly excluded from the conversation? Why is “us” not everyone and “our land” not the Earth?
EA is just as guilty of this, for example when people talk about dollars going farther “overseas”. This is the internet, donors and academics and direct workers and so on live in every country, so where is “local” and where is “overseas”, exactly? For all EA’s globalist ambitious, there is this assumption that people who are actually in a low-middle income country aren’t a part of the conversation. (I agree with everything the “dollar overseas” article actually says, just to be clear. The problem is what the phrasing means about the assumptions of the writers.)
It’s bad when Connor does it and it’s bad when effective altruists do it. Yes, we are writing for a specific audience, but that audience is anyone who takes the time to understand EA ideas and can speak the language written. This is part of what I’m talking about when I say that EA makes some very harmful assumptions about who exactly the agents of change are going to be and the scope of who “effective altruists” potentially are. This problem is not limited to EAs, it is widespread.
The problem isn’t the phrasing, of course, it’s what the phrasing indicates about the writer.
The more important problem, and on this forum, this one is preaching to the choir of course, is 2) You can’t just assume that your solidarity group is the most effective way to do things. Someone still has to do an impact evaluation on your social movement and the flow of talent and resources through that movement, including the particular activities of any particular organization enacting that movement.
Thus far, Effective Altruists are at the forefront of actually attempting to do this in a transparent way for altruistic organizations. The expansion to policy change is still in its infancy, but …I would not be surprised if impact evaluations of attempting political movements and policy changes begin surfacing at some point.
Nor can you just assume that the best way to do things is local and that people should for some mysterious reason focus on things “in their own lands”. Yes, it may in fact be beneficial to be local at times, but...you have to actually check, you have to have some reasonable account of why this is the most effective thing for you to do.
Once you agree on certain very basic premises (that all humans are roughly equally important moral subjects, that the results of your actions are important, etc) I think all effective altruism really asks is that you attempt process of actually estimating the effect of your use of resources and talent in a rigorous way. This applies regardless of whether your method is philanthropy or collective action.
(What would Connor say if they read my comment? I suspect they would at the very least admit that it was not ideal to implicitly assume their audience like that. But I’d like to think any shrewd supporter of collective action would eventually ask...”Well okay, how do I actually do an impact evaluation of my collective action related plans?” And the result would hopefully be more rigorous and effective collective action, which is more likely to actually accomplish what it was intended to accomplish. I think it’s important that the response deconstructed the false dichotomy between “collective action” and “effective altruism”. The critic should begin asking: “okay, disagreements aside, what might these effective altruist frameworks for evaluating impact do for me?” and “If I think that this other thing is more effective, how can I quantitatively prove it?”)
I think the “less important problem” is related to the “more important problem”. For Connor, even if we grant that collective action is the best thing, the implicitly western “us” limits his vision as to what forms collective action could take, and which social movements people like himself might direct money, talent, or other resources towards. (For EAs, I would speculate that the implicit “us” limits our vision in different, more complicated ways, having to do with under-valuing certain forms of human capital in accomplishing EA goals—Just as Connor just assumes local is better, I think EAs sometimes just assume certain things that EAs tend to assume about exactly who is well placed to make effective impact (and therefore, who needs EA oriented advice, resources, education, training, etc). it’s a subject I’m still thinking about, and it’s the one I hope to write about later.
Come on, the assumption of the writers is “people looking to us for philanthropy advice are predominantly living in the First World,” and that assumption is correct. (And it’s not a self-fulfilling prophecy, either).
OK, then how do you know that it doesn’t merely indicate that the writer is good at writing and marketing?
More evaluations and analyses are always nice (and some EA orgs have done that kind of thing, I believe). But their value can be dubious and it may just be a fruitless meta trap. You may think that an EA organization is under-allocating time and money for meta evaluations, but other people are going to disagree, and the reasons for such disagreement need to be properly addressed before this kind of thing can be used as a general criticism.
No one has a monopoly on critiquing people merely for having unexamined assumptions. If you start it, it turns into a game of whataboutism and petty status-seeking where no actually useful progress is made to help with important efforts in the real world. Drop the methodology wars and focus on making actual progress.
I think that’s a little unfair. It wasn’t just have an “unexamined assumption”, he just declared that solidarity was the best way and named some organizations he liked, with no attempt at estimating and quantifying. And he’s critiquing EA, an ideology whose claim to fame is impact evaluations. Can an EA saying “okay that’s great, I agree that could be true… but how about having a quantitative impact evaluation… of any kind, at all, just to help cement the case” really be characterized as “whataboutism” / methodology war?
(I don’t think I agree with your first paragraph, but I do think it’s fair to argue that “but not all readers are in high income countries” is whataboutism until I more fully expand on what I think the practical implications are on impact evaluation. I’m going to save the discussion about the practical problems that arise from being first world centric for a different post, or drop them, depending on how my opinion changes after I’ve put more thought into it.)