I feel like the main role of a bulldog is to fend off the fiery, polemical enemies of a movement. Atheism and veganism (and even AI safety, kind of) have clear opponents; I donāt think the same is especially true of EA (as a collection of causes).
There are people who argue for localism, or the impracticality of measuring impact, but I canāt think of the last time Iāve seen one of those people have a bad influence on EA. The meat industry wants to kill animals; theists want to promote religion; ineffective charities want toā¦ raise funds? Not as directly opposed to what weāre doing.
We could certainly use more eloquent/āimpassioned public speakers on EA topics (assuming they are scrupulous, as you say), but I wouldnāt think of them as ābulldogsāājust regular advocates.
I donāt think this obscure philosophical critique is evidence that āineffectiveā charities will ever realistically form an organized opposition to effective altruism. It doesnāt benefit āineffectiveā charitiesā interests to criticize or oppose effective altruism; effective altruism is too small and not influential enough to redirect much of their donations away.
The critique has two parts. The first part is a critique of moral impartiality or equal consideration of interests. It seems like itās intended to be a critique of consequentialism and utilitarianism overall. The author seems to be arguing in favour of virtue ethics.
This is too obscure and academic for pretty much any charity to care about or have an opinion on. I think most people find this kind of stuff confusing and boring. It isnāt really something you can mount a public opposition over.
The second part of the critique is standard radical leftist fare. Most charities would not align themselves with that sort of critique, unless that is already a defining part of their political beliefs. So, not a winner here, either, in terms of capturing the public interest.
I feel like the main role of a bulldog is to fend off the fiery, polemical enemies of a movement. Atheism and veganism (and even AI safety, kind of) have clear opponents; I donāt think the same is especially true of EA (as a collection of causes).
There are people who argue for localism, or the impracticality of measuring impact, but I canāt think of the last time Iāve seen one of those people have a bad influence on EA. The meat industry wants to kill animals; theists want to promote religion; ineffective charities want toā¦ raise funds? Not as directly opposed to what weāre doing.
I suppose we did have the Will MacAskill/āGiles Fraser debate at one point, though. MacAskill also took on Peter Buffet in an op-ed column. I donāt know how he feels about those efforts in retrospect.
We could certainly use more eloquent/āimpassioned public speakers on EA topics (assuming they are scrupulous, as you say), but I wouldnāt think of them as ābulldogsāājust regular advocates.
This Letter made me feel like there can be organized opposition from ineffective charities
I donāt think this obscure philosophical critique is evidence that āineffectiveā charities will ever realistically form an organized opposition to effective altruism. It doesnāt benefit āineffectiveā charitiesā interests to criticize or oppose effective altruism; effective altruism is too small and not influential enough to redirect much of their donations away.
The critique has two parts. The first part is a critique of moral impartiality or equal consideration of interests. It seems like itās intended to be a critique of consequentialism and utilitarianism overall. The author seems to be arguing in favour of virtue ethics.
This is too obscure and academic for pretty much any charity to care about or have an opinion on. I think most people find this kind of stuff confusing and boring. It isnāt really something you can mount a public opposition over.
The second part of the critique is standard radical leftist fare. Most charities would not align themselves with that sort of critique, unless that is already a defining part of their political beliefs. So, not a winner here, either, in terms of capturing the public interest.
Thank you Aaron, these are great points!