EA states, through its published texts (books, websites, and others), that it is a social movement with the potential to change the world. The principle of promoting rational, coherent, and systemic altruistic action may imply this, because altruism as an economic system can encompass all human social activity.
In that case, it would indeed contradict any other social movement, including socialism and Christianity. Socialism is an ideology that promotes a political system (coercive authorities) that establishes economic equality and social justice. The goal of socially just economic equality guaranteed by law implies that the militant socialist’s primary consequence of their ideological commitment will be to facilitate this political regime. Doing the greatest good for the greatest number will equate to facilitating the success of the socialist political system (a long-term cause). Logically, one should dedicate 10% of their income not to fighting malaria, but to political actions that favor socialism. In fact, the EA movement already receives a lot of criticism from those who support various political advocacy movements (for example; against racism, in favor of animal rights, in favor of environmental legislation).
Well, it depends how big one thinks the impact of donating 10% of one’s income to political actions that favour socialism is at increasing the probability of socialism. Since there are already a large number of socialists, seems reasonable to think that one individual’s impact will not be as great as it would be were one to donate to e.g. help malaria, help reduce animal suffering.
At the very least, one could be socialist and go vegan. These seem like they’re not in that much conflict, and can be a point of agreement. And one can always keep an open mind! :)
EA states, through its published texts (books, websites, and others), that it is a social movement with the potential to change the world. The principle of promoting rational, coherent, and systemic altruistic action may imply this, because altruism as an economic system can encompass all human social activity.
In that case, it would indeed contradict any other social movement, including socialism and Christianity. Socialism is an ideology that promotes a political system (coercive authorities) that establishes economic equality and social justice. The goal of socially just economic equality guaranteed by law implies that the militant socialist’s primary consequence of their ideological commitment will be to facilitate this political regime. Doing the greatest good for the greatest number will equate to facilitating the success of the socialist political system (a long-term cause). Logically, one should dedicate 10% of their income not to fighting malaria, but to political actions that favor socialism. In fact, the EA movement already receives a lot of criticism from those who support various political advocacy movements (for example; against racism, in favor of animal rights, in favor of environmental legislation).
Well, it depends how big one thinks the impact of donating 10% of one’s income to political actions that favour socialism is at increasing the probability of socialism. Since there are already a large number of socialists, seems reasonable to think that one individual’s impact will not be as great as it would be were one to donate to e.g. help malaria, help reduce animal suffering.
At the very least, one could be socialist and go vegan. These seem like they’re not in that much conflict, and can be a point of agreement. And one can always keep an open mind! :)