I didn’t downvote, but the initial title seems to suggest that Effective Altruism and socialism would be at odds. I don’t really think that EA and socialism are at odds, nor any ideology per se. If we have different views within EA about what forms of government, etc. are likely to produce flourishing within EA, we would expect EAs who have different political beliefs. To be clear, you made clear in your post that you can be committed to different beliefs and still be EA, but the top level framing I found a bit jarring. Generally, a lot of the arguments that purport to be against EA are arguments against some cause prioritizations or perspectives on how to do the most good, which seem like they might make more sense within the tent of EA.
Ah, I’m sorry the title had that effect on people if that experience generalizes. Not my intention. Just meant as an honest depiction of how my views have evolved over time.
Generally, a lot of the arguments that purport to be against EA are arguments against some cause prioritizations or perspectives on how to do the most good, which seem like they might make more sense within the tent of EA.
Slightly confused about this though? I’m not totally sure how this relates to the post? Do you mean that socialists can still argue cause-prioritization and perspectives on doing the most good within EA. I totally agree with that, as I say.
It only relates to it insofar as someone could view your post (just looking at the title) as implying socialism and EA (at the broadest level, trying to do the most good we can with resources) are at odds. In reality, a lot of critics of EA are addressing the community’s choice of priorities rather than EA at the broadest level. I would prefer it if such critics embraced the EA framework explicitly and made the case that their cause area or philosophy is actually the most EA, if this is pretty much what they are doing.
There’s a lot of conflation between what the EA community is prioritizing at any given point and EA as a philosophy to guide moral behavior. I think this conflation probably does a lot of damage to EA’s ability to proliferate.
I didn’t downvote, but the initial title seems to suggest that Effective Altruism and socialism would be at odds. I don’t really think that EA and socialism are at odds, nor any ideology per se. If we have different views within EA about what forms of government, etc. are likely to produce flourishing within EA, we would expect EAs who have different political beliefs. To be clear, you made clear in your post that you can be committed to different beliefs and still be EA, but the top level framing I found a bit jarring. Generally, a lot of the arguments that purport to be against EA are arguments against some cause prioritizations or perspectives on how to do the most good, which seem like they might make more sense within the tent of EA.
Ah, I’m sorry the title had that effect on people if that experience generalizes. Not my intention. Just meant as an honest depiction of how my views have evolved over time.
Slightly confused about this though? I’m not totally sure how this relates to the post? Do you mean that socialists can still argue cause-prioritization and perspectives on doing the most good within EA. I totally agree with that, as I say.
It only relates to it insofar as someone could view your post (just looking at the title) as implying socialism and EA (at the broadest level, trying to do the most good we can with resources) are at odds. In reality, a lot of critics of EA are addressing the community’s choice of priorities rather than EA at the broadest level. I would prefer it if such critics embraced the EA framework explicitly and made the case that their cause area or philosophy is actually the most EA, if this is pretty much what they are doing.
There’s a lot of conflation between what the EA community is prioritizing at any given point and EA as a philosophy to guide moral behavior. I think this conflation probably does a lot of damage to EA’s ability to proliferate.
Agree!