Yes, this is a good point, but it points to a deeper one.
Much of the appeal of EA, in my view, is contingent on the circumstances we live in. These include, e.g., the fact that many people are rich enough to be able to live comfortable lives even after giving away sizeable amounts of money: if we were all subsistence farmers then EA just wouldn’t appeal as a practical option. But the key circumstance for the purposes of your essay is the lack of plausible alternative ways of making a significant contributions to civilisation.
For whatever reason, the fact is that Western culture, right now, is not producing cultural achievements of lasting worth. If you were an intelligent, well-educated young person in 1650, 1750 or 1850 then there was a decent chance that you would be able to make a serious contribution to the accumulated cultural inheritance of mankind. But not now. You know, as I do, that no one has written a symphony of the standard that was common in the 18th, or a novel of the standard common in the 19th century, for a long time—and it’s not going to happen anytime soon, no matter how many well-fed literate and educated billions there are.
If you are a serious-minded young person now, hoping to do something worthwhile with your life, you’re not going to become a composer or a poet. So what’s left? Something to do with reducing suffering seems pretty good. Scientific/medical/social/logistic advances are still happening, unlike cultural ones, so that seems like a good way to spend your life.
Now, of course, relieving suffering is a very good way to spend one’s life! But things would look very different to you if it looked as if you might be able to spend your life instead building another Chartres Cathedral or writing Beethoven’s symphonies or painting Raphaels.
Or let me put the point the other way: we don’t look back and criticise Beethoven because he spent too much time composing and not enough time distributing malaria nets. That’s because, utilitarianism (even “minus all the controversial bits”) just doesn’t seem like a sensible way of evaluating a civilisation in which Beethoven, Goethe, Byron, Blake, David, Goya, Rossini etc were all working at the same time. The fact that utilitarianism appears at all plausible now demonstrates the lack of new excellence on display or reasonably attainable. A philosophy for swine? Maybe. But what if we are swine?
I don’t agree about this novels point. There are many novels written in the last few decades that are absolutely as good or better than the great 19th century novels. They may not have the social status as “classics” in the same way but as art they are excellent. Just for an example look at the UK booker prize shortlists for the 80s 90s and 2000s. Some incredible work there.
Yes, this is a good point, but it points to a deeper one.
Much of the appeal of EA, in my view, is contingent on the circumstances we live in. These include, e.g., the fact that many people are rich enough to be able to live comfortable lives even after giving away sizeable amounts of money: if we were all subsistence farmers then EA just wouldn’t appeal as a practical option. But the key circumstance for the purposes of your essay is the lack of plausible alternative ways of making a significant contributions to civilisation.
For whatever reason, the fact is that Western culture, right now, is not producing cultural achievements of lasting worth. If you were an intelligent, well-educated young person in 1650, 1750 or 1850 then there was a decent chance that you would be able to make a serious contribution to the accumulated cultural inheritance of mankind. But not now. You know, as I do, that no one has written a symphony of the standard that was common in the 18th, or a novel of the standard common in the 19th century, for a long time—and it’s not going to happen anytime soon, no matter how many well-fed literate and educated billions there are.
If you are a serious-minded young person now, hoping to do something worthwhile with your life, you’re not going to become a composer or a poet. So what’s left? Something to do with reducing suffering seems pretty good. Scientific/medical/social/logistic advances are still happening, unlike cultural ones, so that seems like a good way to spend your life.
Now, of course, relieving suffering is a very good way to spend one’s life! But things would look very different to you if it looked as if you might be able to spend your life instead building another Chartres Cathedral or writing Beethoven’s symphonies or painting Raphaels.
Or let me put the point the other way: we don’t look back and criticise Beethoven because he spent too much time composing and not enough time distributing malaria nets. That’s because, utilitarianism (even “minus all the controversial bits”) just doesn’t seem like a sensible way of evaluating a civilisation in which Beethoven, Goethe, Byron, Blake, David, Goya, Rossini etc were all working at the same time. The fact that utilitarianism appears at all plausible now demonstrates the lack of new excellence on display or reasonably attainable. A philosophy for swine? Maybe. But what if we are swine?
I tried to make some of these points before here: https://furtheroralternatively.blogspot.com/2022/07/on-effective-altruism.html .
I don’t agree about this novels point. There are many novels written in the last few decades that are absolutely as good or better than the great 19th century novels. They may not have the social status as “classics” in the same way but as art they are excellent. Just for an example look at the UK booker prize shortlists for the 80s 90s and 2000s. Some incredible work there.