You seem to be using the term “cause neutral” in the sense that “all causes are EA causes” (you link to a post by Ian David Moss with that title, seemingly approvingly). However, this is confusing because the term “cause neutral” is usually used for the opposite notion: that we should select causes based on impartial estimates of impact, and not invest in low-impact causes. (Also, note that Moss seems to use the term “cause neutral” in the latter sense, rather than in your sense.)
See this post for a discussion of the notion of cause-neutrality.
Woof! Thanks for noting this Stefan! As you say, cause neutrality is used in the exact opposite way (to denote that we select causes based on impartial estimates of impact, not that we are neutral about where another person gives their money/time). I’ve edited my post slightly to reflect this. Thanks!
You seem to be using the term “cause neutral” in the sense that “all causes are EA causes” (you link to a post by Ian David Moss with that title, seemingly approvingly). However, this is confusing because the term “cause neutral” is usually used for the opposite notion: that we should select causes based on impartial estimates of impact, and not invest in low-impact causes. (Also, note that Moss seems to use the term “cause neutral” in the latter sense, rather than in your sense.)
See this post for a discussion of the notion of cause-neutrality.
Woof! Thanks for noting this Stefan! As you say, cause neutrality is used in the exact opposite way (to denote that we select causes based on impartial estimates of impact, not that we are neutral about where another person gives their money/time). I’ve edited my post slightly to reflect this. Thanks!