I was confused by the first paragraph of Paul’s comment.
Is it saying that EA assumes that “the best” way to help people = “the most effective” way to help people?
If so, could you please define what you meant “best” and “effective”?
I get the impression Paul has some distinction in mind, but I don’t understand what it is. (Paragraph copied below)
I think this paper is weak from the outset in similar ways to the entire philosophical project of EA overall. You start with the definition of EA as “the project of trying to find the best ways of helping others, and putting them into practice”. In that definition “the best” means “the most effective”, which is one of the ways in which EA arguments rhetorically load the dice. If I don’t agree that the most effective way to help people (under EA definitions) is always and necessarily the best way to help people, then the whole paper is weakened. Essentially, one ends up preaching to the choir—which is fine if that’s what one wants to do, of course.
Yes, I am claiming that when Effective Altruism is defined as “trying to find the best ways” what it really means is “trying to find the most effective ways”. As far as I can tell the reasons for using “the best” are to avoid a circular definition (“Effective Altruism is trying to find the most effective ways to perform altruism”) and as a rhetorical device to deflect criticism (“Surely you can’t object to trying to find the best ways of helping others?!”).
Despite protests to the contrary EA is a form of utilitarianism, and when the word effective is used it has generally been in the sense of “cost effective”. If you are not an effective altruist (which I am not), then cost effectiveness—while important—is an instrumental value rather than an intrinsic value. Depending on your ethical framework, therefore, what you define as “the best way” to help people will differ from the effective altruist.
I was confused by the first paragraph of Paul’s comment.
Is it saying that EA assumes that “the best” way to help people = “the most effective” way to help people?
If so, could you please define what you meant “best” and “effective”?
I get the impression Paul has some distinction in mind, but I don’t understand what it is. (Paragraph copied below)
Yes, I am claiming that when Effective Altruism is defined as “trying to find the best ways” what it really means is “trying to find the most effective ways”. As far as I can tell the reasons for using “the best” are to avoid a circular definition (“Effective Altruism is trying to find the most effective ways to perform altruism”) and as a rhetorical device to deflect criticism (“Surely you can’t object to trying to find the best ways of helping others?!”).
Despite protests to the contrary EA is a form of utilitarianism, and when the word effective is used it has generally been in the sense of “cost effective”. If you are not an effective altruist (which I am not), then cost effectiveness—while important—is an instrumental value rather than an intrinsic value. Depending on your ethical framework, therefore, what you define as “the best way” to help people will differ from the effective altruist.