EA is a unique community in that its belief is based on a behavioral trait, rather than a set of ideological guidelines that give rise to certain behaviors.
If EA had an ideology, it would be an “ideology of behavior.” Altruistic behavior is natural in human beings, just as other antisocial behaviors are also natural. Repressing some behavioral traits and empowering others is what a cultural model does.
The fact that some people can act altruistically and make significant sacrifices based on a moral autonomy constituted exclusively from rational ideation seems exceptional, without many precedents in the history of human ideological thought (deontology). It might be an unhelpful (not very utilitarian) approach if we need millions of altruistic donors: people motivated to change their lifestyles and make material sacrifices.
Perhaps it would be worth reflecting on the precedents of the ideologies that have led so many to sacrifice themselves for a particular vision of the common good… none of these visions are as solidly grounded in the real possibilities of human nature as EA itself.
For example: Alcoholics Anonymous saw the inability to overcome certain addictions as an evil (for oneself and for others). They then created, through trial and error, community psychological strategies to help those who were motivated to improve their behavior and also to help others themselves. NOT DONATING is also an evil. It is an evil for others, our fellow human beings, who need our help… and it is also an evil for us who allow ourselves to be carried away by a conformist and conventional lifestyle that has been imposed on us.
EA is a unique community in that its belief is based on a behavioral trait, rather than a set of ideological guidelines that give rise to certain behaviors.
If EA had an ideology, it would be an “ideology of behavior.” Altruistic behavior is natural in human beings, just as other antisocial behaviors are also natural. Repressing some behavioral traits and empowering others is what a cultural model does.
Changing one’s lifestyle, depriving oneself of effective capacities to participate in the social environment, enduring the incomprehension of those close to oneself—all of this cannot be done without receiving emotional feedback, which is logical in human development.
The fact that some people can act altruistically and make significant sacrifices based on a moral autonomy constituted exclusively from rational ideation seems exceptional, without many precedents in the history of human ideological thought (deontology). It might be an unhelpful (not very utilitarian) approach if we need millions of altruistic donors: people motivated to change their lifestyles and make material sacrifices.
Perhaps it would be worth reflecting on the precedents of the ideologies that have led so many to sacrifice themselves for a particular vision of the common good… none of these visions are as solidly grounded in the real possibilities of human nature as EA itself.
For example: Alcoholics Anonymous saw the inability to overcome certain addictions as an evil (for oneself and for others). They then created, through trial and error, community psychological strategies to help those who were motivated to improve their behavior and also to help others themselves. NOT DONATING is also an evil. It is an evil for others, our fellow human beings, who need our help… and it is also an evil for us who allow ourselves to be carried away by a conformist and conventional lifestyle that has been imposed on us.