Magnificent work on the motivation for altruistic action. If there is no motivation, there is no action, then the analysis of motivation should be a fundamental issue in any utilitarian approach. But this issue is apparently overlooked because it is taken for granted: instead of increasing the basis for motivation, the emphasis is on how to take advantage of existing motivation, regardless of its psychological origin and how to increase it.
I do believe total utilitarianism is the most ideal moral philosophy, and maximizing my own positive impact in expectation, is my main focus in life
Great. But by opposing altruistic action to happiness, we are overlooking the implications that both altruistic motivation at a given moment and what could be a strategy to increase that motivation (and thus a plausible increase in action) can have for the subjective experience of the altruistic agent.
if I were trying to live completely according to utilitarianism, my risk of burnout would be higher, even though I would consciously try to avoid it.
Are there strategies for psychological change that can simultaneously increase altruistic motivation and happiness?
I believe that in history we have approximate precedents for organized altruistic behaviors that, within the framework of subcultures practicing virtue, also facilitated subjective experiences of “fulfillment” that were attractive to a significant number of individuals. During the Middle Ages, monks and nuns comprised more than 1% of the population in Western Europe. Obviously, I’m not making an exact equivalence between these types of behaviors (secular altruism today and religious altruism then), but there is an important commonality: we are all human beings, we choose unconventional behavior, altruism plays a fundamental part in economic life, there is a shared ideological basis in a community… and we aspire to happiness… which can be achieved through many paths.
From a utilitarian perspective, a “monasticism of Effective Altruism” (whatever specific subcultural form it took), if it reached 1% of the population, would have an unimaginable impact on alleviating avoidable suffering worldwide.
Isn’t the matter even worth discussing?
What is the current percentage of people capable of making an altruistic commitment like Jens´ relative to the population of Western Europe alone? Is it increasing?
Magnificent work on the motivation for altruistic action. If there is no motivation, there is no action, then the analysis of motivation should be a fundamental issue in any utilitarian approach. But this issue is apparently overlooked because it is taken for granted: instead of increasing the basis for motivation, the emphasis is on how to take advantage of existing motivation, regardless of its psychological origin and how to increase it.
Great. But by opposing altruistic action to happiness, we are overlooking the implications that both altruistic motivation at a given moment and what could be a strategy to increase that motivation (and thus a plausible increase in action) can have for the subjective experience of the altruistic agent.
Are there strategies for psychological change that can simultaneously increase altruistic motivation and happiness?
I believe that in history we have approximate precedents for organized altruistic behaviors that, within the framework of subcultures practicing virtue, also facilitated subjective experiences of “fulfillment” that were attractive to a significant number of individuals. During the Middle Ages, monks and nuns comprised more than 1% of the population in Western Europe. Obviously, I’m not making an exact equivalence between these types of behaviors (secular altruism today and religious altruism then), but there is an important commonality: we are all human beings, we choose unconventional behavior, altruism plays a fundamental part in economic life, there is a shared ideological basis in a community… and we aspire to happiness… which can be achieved through many paths.
From a utilitarian perspective, a “monasticism of Effective Altruism” (whatever specific subcultural form it took), if it reached 1% of the population, would have an unimaginable impact on alleviating avoidable suffering worldwide.
Isn’t the matter even worth discussing?
What is the current percentage of people capable of making an altruistic commitment like Jens´ relative to the population of Western Europe alone? Is it increasing?