Whether they are called “religions” or “moral ideologies,” if we want to promote the moral evolution of society, we must acknowledge the fact that we need to construct symbolic content capable of influencing psychologically a growing number of people to adopt sacrificial attitudes in the sense of benevolence and altruism… and this will only be effective if those acting feel emotionally rewarded by it. So-called “compassionate religions” represented enormous progress in this direction in the past. Reflecting on this could pull the EA movement out of its current stagnation. The great value of altruistic behavior is that it offers a rationalization of altruistic behavior detached from the irrational constraints of religious and political traditions.
I do think it is immoral that I do not increase my percentage donations. Is this incoherent or hypocritical? Maybe. But as of now, I am comfortable with this ‘level of immorality’
Whether someone feels comfortable with a particular style of behavior is a consequence of that person’s social and emotional conditioning. What factors could make the greatest possible number of people feel comfortable engaging in the greatest possible amount of altruistic action? That should be the primary focus now of those who advocate for the rationalization of altruistic behavior.
A person donating 10% for forty years, helping neighbours, caring for family, making art and being a decent colleague might do considerably more good than someone who spends three years trying to become morally optimal, burns out, becomes a husk, and never wants to hear the word altruism again.
But a person who could dedicate their life to altruistic work (at 30%, 40%, or 90%) and also derive emotional fulfillment, inner peace, and affection from it—similar to how millions of people have experienced it within the traditional (and irrational) altruistic ideologies of the past (and which are still languishing today)—would accomplish far more good than the cognitively unmotivated conservative.
Whether they are called “religions” or “moral ideologies,” if we want to promote the moral evolution of society, we must acknowledge the fact that we need to construct symbolic content capable of influencing psychologically a growing number of people to adopt sacrificial attitudes in the sense of benevolence and altruism… and this will only be effective if those acting feel emotionally rewarded by it. So-called “compassionate religions” represented enormous progress in this direction in the past. Reflecting on this could pull the EA movement out of its current stagnation. The great value of altruistic behavior is that it offers a rationalization of altruistic behavior detached from the irrational constraints of religious and political traditions.
Whether someone feels comfortable with a particular style of behavior is a consequence of that person’s social and emotional conditioning. What factors could make the greatest possible number of people feel comfortable engaging in the greatest possible amount of altruistic action? That should be the primary focus now of those who advocate for the rationalization of altruistic behavior.
But a person who could dedicate their life to altruistic work (at 30%, 40%, or 90%) and also derive emotional fulfillment, inner peace, and affection from it—similar to how millions of people have experienced it within the traditional (and irrational) altruistic ideologies of the past (and which are still languishing today)—would accomplish far more good than the cognitively unmotivated conservative.
Evolution is “copy plus modification.” Denying the evidence of the cultural changes that may yet come is pure superstition, the very opposite of what EA aims to be. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uaGR6yhpEmdtgncuZ/altruism-and-minority-influence