EA is not ethically agnostic. It is unquestionably utilitarian (although I feel there is still some debate over the “total” part). Is this a problem for people of other ethical viewpoints? I don’t know, I can’t speak for other people. But I think there’s a lot of value to where the utilitarian rubber meets the road even if you have other moral considerations, in the ruthless focus on what works. For example, I still maintain a monthly donation to GiveDirectly even though I know it is much less cost effective than other givewell top charities. Why? Because I care about the dignity afforded by cash transfers in a non-consequentialist way, and I will comfortably make that choice instead of having a 10x larger impact from AMF or something like that. So I follow the utilitarian train up to a certain point (cash transfers work, we measure the impact with evidence) and then get off the train.
In this metaphor, EA keeps the train going until the end of the line (total utilitarianism?) But you don’t need to stay on until the end of the line. You can get off whenever you want. That makes it pretty freeing. The problem comes only when you feel like you need to stay on the train until the end, because of social pressure or because you feel clueless and want to be in with the smart people.
The eternal mantra: EA is a question, not an answer. And even if the majority of people believe in an answer that I don’t, I don’t care—it’s my question as much as it is theirs.
If EA is unquestionably utilitarian I don’t really like the vocabulary we use. Positive impact, altruism, global priorities research are all words that imply ethical agnosticism imo, or just seem somewhat disingenuous if not without proper context.
Also it’s a bit unclear to me that EA is unquestionably utilitarian. Is there some official statement by a top org saying as much?
On 80k’s “common misconceptions about ea” : “ Misconception #4: Effective altruism is just utilitarianism”.
Open Phil talks about world views they consider “plausible”, which isn’t explicitly anything nor is it compatible with anti realism.
I don’t doubt that EA operates as a utilitarian movement. But if this is more or less official than there should be more transparency.
EA is not ethically agnostic. It is unquestionably utilitarian (although I feel there is still some debate over the “total” part). Is this a problem for people of other ethical viewpoints? I don’t know, I can’t speak for other people. But I think there’s a lot of value to where the utilitarian rubber meets the road even if you have other moral considerations, in the ruthless focus on what works. For example, I still maintain a monthly donation to GiveDirectly even though I know it is much less cost effective than other givewell top charities. Why? Because I care about the dignity afforded by cash transfers in a non-consequentialist way, and I will comfortably make that choice instead of having a 10x larger impact from AMF or something like that. So I follow the utilitarian train up to a certain point (cash transfers work, we measure the impact with evidence) and then get off the train.
In this metaphor, EA keeps the train going until the end of the line (total utilitarianism?) But you don’t need to stay on until the end of the line. You can get off whenever you want. That makes it pretty freeing. The problem comes only when you feel like you need to stay on the train until the end, because of social pressure or because you feel clueless and want to be in with the smart people.
The eternal mantra: EA is a question, not an answer. And even if the majority of people believe in an answer that I don’t, I don’t care—it’s my question as much as it is theirs.
If EA is unquestionably utilitarian I don’t really like the vocabulary we use. Positive impact, altruism, global priorities research are all words that imply ethical agnosticism imo, or just seem somewhat disingenuous if not without proper context.
Also it’s a bit unclear to me that EA is unquestionably utilitarian. Is there some official statement by a top org saying as much?
On 80k’s “common misconceptions about ea” : “ Misconception #4: Effective altruism is just utilitarianism”.
Open Phil talks about world views they consider “plausible”, which isn’t explicitly anything nor is it compatible with anti realism.
I don’t doubt that EA operates as a utilitarian movement. But if this is more or less official than there should be more transparency.
Yes, EA is much broader than utilitarianism. See comment above and Will’s paper.