I think it’s probably not great to have “effective altruist” as an identity either (I largely agree with Jonas’s post and the others I linked), although I disagree with the case you’re making for this.
I think that my case against EA-as-identity would be more on the (2) side, to use the framing of your post. Yours seems to be from (1), and based (partly) on the claim that “EA” requires the assumption that “you have to try to do the most good” (which I think is false). (I also think you’re pointing to the least falsifiable of the assumptions/cruxes I listed for longtermism.)
In practice, I probably slip more with “effective altruist” than I do with “longtermist,” and call people “EAs” more (including myself, in my head). This post is largely me thinking through what I should do—rather than explaining to readers how they should emulate me.
Fair point, thanks!
I think it’s probably not great to have “effective altruist” as an identity either (I largely agree with Jonas’s post and the others I linked), although I disagree with the case you’re making for this.
I think that my case against EA-as-identity would be more on the (2) side, to use the framing of your post. Yours seems to be from (1), and based (partly) on the claim that “EA” requires the assumption that “you have to try to do the most good” (which I think is false). (I also think you’re pointing to the least falsifiable of the assumptions/cruxes I listed for longtermism.)
In practice, I probably slip more with “effective altruist” than I do with “longtermist,” and call people “EAs” more (including myself, in my head). This post is largely me thinking through what I should do—rather than explaining to readers how they should emulate me.
One thing I’m curious about—how do you effectively communicate the concept of EA without identifying as an effective altruist?