My spouse and I are both heavily involved with EA, but we nevertheless have significant differences in our philosophies. My spouse’s world view is pretty much a central example of EA: impartiality, utilitarianism et cetera. On the other hand, I assign far greater weight to helping people who are close to me compared to helping random strangers[1]. Importantly, we know that we have value differences, we accept it, and we are consciously working towards solutions that are aimed to benefit both of our value systems, with some fair balance between the two. This is also reflected in our marriage vows.
I think that the critical thing is that your SO accepts that:
It is fine to have value differences.
They should be considerate of your values (and you should be considerate of their values, ofc). Both systems have to be taken into account when making decisions.
There is no “objective” standard s.t. they can “prove” their own values to be “better” according to that standard and you would have to accept it.
You don’t need to justify your values. They are valid as is, without any justification.
If your SO cannot concede that much, it’s a problem IMO. A healthy relationship is built on a commitment to each other, not on a commitment to some abstract philosophy. Philosophies enters it only inasmuch as they are important to each of you.
That said, I also accept considerations of the form “help X (at considerable cost) if they would have used similar reasoning to decide whether to help you if the roles were reversed”.
My spouse and I are both heavily involved with EA, but we nevertheless have significant differences in our philosophies. My spouse’s world view is pretty much a central example of EA: impartiality, utilitarianism et cetera. On the other hand, I assign far greater weight to helping people who are close to me compared to helping random strangers[1]. Importantly, we know that we have value differences, we accept it, and we are consciously working towards solutions that are aimed to benefit both of our value systems, with some fair balance between the two. This is also reflected in our marriage vows.
I think that the critical thing is that your SO accepts that:
It is fine to have value differences.
They should be considerate of your values (and you should be considerate of their values, ofc). Both systems have to be taken into account when making decisions.
There is no “objective” standard s.t. they can “prove” their own values to be “better” according to that standard and you would have to accept it.
You don’t need to justify your values. They are valid as is, without any justification.
If your SO cannot concede that much, it’s a problem IMO. A healthy relationship is built on a commitment to each other, not on a commitment to some abstract philosophy. Philosophies enters it only inasmuch as they are important to each of you.
That said, I also accept considerations of the form “help X (at considerable cost) if they would have used similar reasoning to decide whether to help you if the roles were reversed”.