Thanks for the link. (Iād much rather people read that than Wenarās confused thoughts.)
Hereās the bit I take to represent the ācore issueā:
If everyone thinks in terms of something like āapproximate shares of moral creditā, then this can help in coordinating to avoid situations where a lot of people work on a project because it seems worth it on marginal impact, but it would have been better if theyād all done something different.
Can you point to textual evidence that Wenar is actually gesturing at anything remotely in this vicinity? The alternative interpretation (which I think is better supported by the actual text) is that heās (i) conceptually confused about moral credit in a way that is deeply unreasonable, (ii) thinking about how to discredit EA, not how to optimize coordination, and (iii) simply happened to say something that vaguely reminds you of your own, much more reasonable, take.
If Iām right about (i)-(iii), then I donāt think itās accurate to characterize him as āin some reasonable way gesturing at the core issue.ā
I guess I think itās likely some middle ground? I donāt think he has a clear conceptual understanding of moral credit, but I do think heās tuning in to ways in which EA claims may be exaggerating the impact people can have. I find it quite easy to believe thatās motivated by some desire to make EA look badābut so what? If people who want to make EA look bad make for good researchers hunting for (potentially-substantive) issues, so much the better.
Thanks for the link. (Iād much rather people read that than Wenarās confused thoughts.)
Hereās the bit I take to represent the ācore issueā:
Can you point to textual evidence that Wenar is actually gesturing at anything remotely in this vicinity? The alternative interpretation (which I think is better supported by the actual text) is that heās (i) conceptually confused about moral credit in a way that is deeply unreasonable, (ii) thinking about how to discredit EA, not how to optimize coordination, and (iii) simply happened to say something that vaguely reminds you of your own, much more reasonable, take.
If Iām right about (i)-(iii), then I donāt think itās accurate to characterize him as āin some reasonable way gesturing at the core issue.ā
I guess I think itās likely some middle ground? I donāt think he has a clear conceptual understanding of moral credit, but I do think heās tuning in to ways in which EA claims may be exaggerating the impact people can have. I find it quite easy to believe thatās motivated by some desire to make EA look badābut so what? If people who want to make EA look bad make for good researchers hunting for (potentially-substantive) issues, so much the better.