Passage 5 seems to prove too much, in the sense of âIf you take X philosophy literally, it becomes bad for youâ being applicable to most philosophies, but I very much like Passage 4, the EA judo one.
While it is very much true that disagreeing over the object-level causes shouldnât disqualify one from EA, I do agree that it is not completely separate from EAâthat EA is not defined purely by its choice of causes, but neither does it stand fully apart from them. EA is, in a sense, both a question and an ideology, and trying to make sure the ideology part doesnât jump too far ahead of the question part is important.
âAgain: if your social movement âworks in principleâ but practical implementation has too many problems, then itâs not really working in principle, either. The quality âwe are able to do this effectively in practiceâ is an important (implicit) in-principle quality.â
I think this is a very key thing that many movements, including EA, should keep in mind. I think that what EA should be aiming for is âEA has some very good answers to the question of how we can do the most good, and we think theyâre the best answers humanity has yet come up with to answer the question. Thatâs different from thinking our answers are objectively true, or that we have all the best answers and there are none left to find.â We can have the humility to question ourselves, but still have the confidence to suggest our answers are good ones.
I dream of a world where EA is to doing good as science is to human knowledge. Science isnât always right, and science has been proven wrong again and again in the past, but science is collectively humanityâs best guess. I would like for EA to be humanityâs best guess at how to do the most good. EA is very young compared to science, so Iâm not surprised we donât have that same level of mastery over our field as science does, but I think thatâs the target.
Thank you Jay, this is such a great response, I especially liked this paragraph:
While it is very much true that disagreeing over the object-level causes shouldnât disqualify one from EA, I do agree that it is not completely separate from EAâthat EA is not defined purely by its choice of causes, but neither does it stand fully apart from them. EA is, in a sense, both a question and an ideology, and trying to make sure the ideology part doesnât jump too far ahead of the question part is important.
Also, to me I think EA is essentially about applying the scientific revolution to the realm of doing good (as a branch of science of sorts).
Passage 5 seems to prove too much, in the sense of âIf you take X philosophy literally, it becomes bad for youâ being applicable to most philosophies, but I very much like Passage 4, the EA judo one.
While it is very much true that disagreeing over the object-level causes shouldnât disqualify one from EA, I do agree that it is not completely separate from EAâthat EA is not defined purely by its choice of causes, but neither does it stand fully apart from them. EA is, in a sense, both a question and an ideology, and trying to make sure the ideology part doesnât jump too far ahead of the question part is important.
âAgain: if your social movement âworks in principleâ but practical implementation has too many problems, then itâs not really working in principle, either. The quality âwe are able to do this effectively in practiceâ is an important (implicit) in-principle quality.â
I think this is a very key thing that many movements, including EA, should keep in mind. I think that what EA should be aiming for is âEA has some very good answers to the question of how we can do the most good, and we think theyâre the best answers humanity has yet come up with to answer the question. Thatâs different from thinking our answers are objectively true, or that we have all the best answers and there are none left to find.â We can have the humility to question ourselves, but still have the confidence to suggest our answers are good ones.
I dream of a world where EA is to doing good as science is to human knowledge. Science isnât always right, and science has been proven wrong again and again in the past, but science is collectively humanityâs best guess. I would like for EA to be humanityâs best guess at how to do the most good. EA is very young compared to science, so Iâm not surprised we donât have that same level of mastery over our field as science does, but I think thatâs the target.
Thank you Jay, this is such a great response, I especially liked this paragraph:
Also, to me I think EA is essentially about applying the scientific revolution to the realm of doing good (as a branch of science of sorts).