Reminds me of something similar Kelsey Piper wrote:
“Would an effective altruist movement in the 1840s U.S. have been abolitionist?”
“Next, imagine someone walked into that 1840s EA group and said, ’I think black people are exactly as valuable as white people and it should be illegal to discriminate against them at all,” or someone walked into the 1920s EA group and said, “I think gay rights are really important.” I want us to be a community that wouldn’t have kicked them out.”
I think EA would have been a place in the 19th century that would have tolerated if not agreed with abolitionist views. My fear is that EAs’ position to someone like Benjamin Lay would be his work as futile effort on an intractable problem and instead focus on improving welfare of slaves on plantations through some type of scheme. And this is my concern of EAs today, that the community leaves impact on the table by not pursuing systems change (e.g. political system reform) because it seems to have low tractability.
One of the reasons why I chose Prohibition is because it’s a failed policy. A successful policy like the abolition of slavery introduces more potential for cognitive bias, like the tendency to view successful policies as inevitable or to support a position because of its success (“They like the strong horse.”)
I like to think that I would’ve been pro-abolition. But you’re right, I don’t know whether 19thC me would’ve considered slavery a tractable issue. I also think there would’ve been a values call at some point, when it became clear the only path to abolition was via organized violence (war). Now I’m curious about how abolitionist pacifist groups like the Quakers addressed the topic. I’m going to squeeze that into my research this week.
Side note, I’m coming around to the idea the Prohibition isn’t actually a failed policy (except in the sense that it was overturned), because the decrease in domestic violence actually exceeded the amount of violence perpetrated by bootleggers. But from a democratic policymaking perspective, the legibility of the violence matters.
iirc there were prominent thinkers in the 19th Century like Thomas Jefferson who decried Slavery as a moral monstrosity but lamented that things could not be any other way (TEDx animation is where I remember this from).
And they held this view and wrote about it mere months before abolition laws were to be passed. Social change can happen faster than people predict it possible.
Reminds me of something similar Kelsey Piper wrote:
“Would an effective altruist movement in the 1840s U.S. have been abolitionist?”
“Next, imagine someone walked into that 1840s EA group and said, ’I think black people are exactly as valuable as white people and it should be illegal to discriminate against them at all,” or someone walked into the 1920s EA group and said, “I think gay rights are really important.” I want us to be a community that wouldn’t have kicked them out.”
I think EA would have been a place in the 19th century that would have tolerated if not agreed with abolitionist views. My fear is that EAs’ position to someone like Benjamin Lay would be his work as futile effort on an intractable problem and instead focus on improving welfare of slaves on plantations through some type of scheme. And this is my concern of EAs today, that the community leaves impact on the table by not pursuing systems change (e.g. political system reform) because it seems to have low tractability.
A more discomforting question is whether EA would have tolerated people who were pro-slavery!
Good analysis.
One of the reasons why I chose Prohibition is because it’s a failed policy. A successful policy like the abolition of slavery introduces more potential for cognitive bias, like the tendency to view successful policies as inevitable or to support a position because of its success (“They like the strong horse.”)
I like to think that I would’ve been pro-abolition. But you’re right, I don’t know whether 19thC me would’ve considered slavery a tractable issue. I also think there would’ve been a values call at some point, when it became clear the only path to abolition was via organized violence (war). Now I’m curious about how abolitionist pacifist groups like the Quakers addressed the topic. I’m going to squeeze that into my research this week.
Side note, I’m coming around to the idea the Prohibition isn’t actually a failed policy (except in the sense that it was overturned), because the decrease in domestic violence actually exceeded the amount of violence perpetrated by bootleggers. But from a democratic policymaking perspective, the legibility of the violence matters.
Here’s an essay from Vox making this case.
iirc there were prominent thinkers in the 19th Century like Thomas Jefferson who decried Slavery as a moral monstrosity but lamented that things could not be any other way (TEDx animation is where I remember this from).
And they held this view and wrote about it mere months before abolition laws were to be passed. Social change can happen faster than people predict it possible.