The New Atlantis (American religious conservative magazine about science and ethics) has an article out about Effective Altruism. It endorses some parts of EA, but is critical of EA as a whole. Main points (although the article is more nuanced than this summary can convey):
EA charities, at least the global health and development ones, do good
EA is closely linked to cultish elements of the rationalist community
The “pencil problem”: in complex systems, it’s hard to centrally plan
Emotional appeals are a functioning planning mechanism for the world of charity
EA is opposed to emotional appeals
EA doesn’t include a role for friendship and personal relationships, but it should
The “paper towel problem”: EA doesn’t include a role for maintaing social norms
EAs are more driven by wanting to show off their intellectual firepower than help others
EAs don’t follow through with their wilder claims
He instead recommends a sort of virtue-ethics-ish approach to doing good
I have no affiliation with the people who produced this article, but came across it and thought that it seemed interesting and was better-informed than many of the other critiques of EA that get discussed on here, although I don’t agree with all of his points.
Open Wallets, Empty Hearts [linkpost]
Link post
The New Atlantis (American religious conservative magazine about science and ethics) has an article out about Effective Altruism. It endorses some parts of EA, but is critical of EA as a whole. Main points (although the article is more nuanced than this summary can convey):
EA charities, at least the global health and development ones, do good
EA is closely linked to cultish elements of the rationalist community
The “pencil problem”: in complex systems, it’s hard to centrally plan
Emotional appeals are a functioning planning mechanism for the world of charity
EA is opposed to emotional appeals
EA doesn’t include a role for friendship and personal relationships, but it should
The “paper towel problem”: EA doesn’t include a role for maintaing social norms
EAs are more driven by wanting to show off their intellectual firepower than help others
EAs don’t follow through with their wilder claims
He instead recommends a sort of virtue-ethics-ish approach to doing good
I have no affiliation with the people who produced this article, but came across it and thought that it seemed interesting and was better-informed than many of the other critiques of EA that get discussed on here, although I don’t agree with all of his points.