I’ve recently been tweeting about why EA isn’t about “doing the most good” with all your resources.
A big reason is that the original purpose of EA was to have broader appeal and be more defensible than utilitarianism – of interest to anyone with”doing good” as one of their goals, rather than their only goal.
However, I also don’t want to discourage the people who do make doing good their central purpose, and are aligned in doing that.
This distinction might help – dedicates can be praised and respected, without implying that you need to be a dedicate in order to be an EA.
Maybe we can also develop a more nuanced discussion about who should be a dedicate and who shouldn’t. Another concern I have now is people feeling pressure to prioritise doing good more, even when parts of them are conflicted about it; or people who pretend that doing good is their main goal when it actually isn’t. I often think in terms of alignment – being a dedicate is good when your main drives & parts of your life are aligned with doing that; but otherwise it’s likely to cause problems (though could still be worth doing for a few years, and going back to the lay life afterwards, as you say).
This said, I’m not sure the actual term ‘dedicate’ is ideal – I’d want to consider a bunch of alternatives before trying to introduce it. I think “making doing good your central purpose” is a good direction for the framing – since it doesn’t sound self-sacrificial. I think there are also problems caused by adding a stronger distinction e..g in buddhism, my impression is the monks have tended to get more status and become out of touch with the lay people & real world problems; so more blurring might have been ideal.
A minor thing, but I disagree with “[as a dedicate] Your friends need to be completely on board with your life’s work.” It might be true for your life partner, but I think dedicates often have some close friends who aren’t “completely on board” with your life’s work, and it can be fine – even a positive.
I appreciated this post.
I’ve recently been tweeting about why EA isn’t about “doing the most good” with all your resources.
A big reason is that the original purpose of EA was to have broader appeal and be more defensible than utilitarianism – of interest to anyone with”doing good” as one of their goals, rather than their only goal.
However, I also don’t want to discourage the people who do make doing good their central purpose, and are aligned in doing that.
This distinction might help – dedicates can be praised and respected, without implying that you need to be a dedicate in order to be an EA.
Maybe we can also develop a more nuanced discussion about who should be a dedicate and who shouldn’t. Another concern I have now is people feeling pressure to prioritise doing good more, even when parts of them are conflicted about it; or people who pretend that doing good is their main goal when it actually isn’t. I often think in terms of alignment – being a dedicate is good when your main drives & parts of your life are aligned with doing that; but otherwise it’s likely to cause problems (though could still be worth doing for a few years, and going back to the lay life afterwards, as you say).
This said, I’m not sure the actual term ‘dedicate’ is ideal – I’d want to consider a bunch of alternatives before trying to introduce it. I think “making doing good your central purpose” is a good direction for the framing – since it doesn’t sound self-sacrificial. I think there are also problems caused by adding a stronger distinction e..g in buddhism, my impression is the monks have tended to get more status and become out of touch with the lay people & real world problems; so more blurring might have been ideal.
A minor thing, but I disagree with “[as a dedicate] Your friends need to be completely on board with your life’s work.” It might be true for your life partner, but I think dedicates often have some close friends who aren’t “completely on board” with your life’s work, and it can be fine – even a positive.