If by “taking seriously” we mean acting effectively, the problem, as I already wrote, is that we have to choose options.
The most plausible option must be the one that increases the possibilities for all kinds of altruistic action. Schubert and Caviola, in their book *Effective Altruism and the Human Mind*, consider it acceptable to offer altruistic options that, while perhaps not the most effective from a logical standpoint, may be more appealing to the general public (thus increasing the number of altruistic agents and the resulting altruistic action in general).
It is necessary to find a middle ground based on trial and error, always bearing in mind that increasing the number of people motivated to act altruistically should be the primary objective. Logically, I am referring to a motivation based on rational and enlightened principles, and one that takes into account the psychological, cultural, and social factors inherent in human altruistic behavior.
The main factor in “Effective Altruism” is altruistic motivation. Long-term options are not very motivating due to the cluelessness factor. Nor are options for animal welfare as motivating as those that involve reducing human suffering in the present moment.
When we have as many agents of “Effective Altruism” as, for example, followers of Jehovah’s Witnesses or communist militants (outside of communist states), then we will be able to make many more altruistic choices of all kinds. Isn’t this plausible?
If by “taking seriously” we mean acting effectively, the problem, as I already wrote, is that we have to choose options.
The most plausible option must be the one that increases the possibilities for all kinds of altruistic action. Schubert and Caviola, in their book *Effective Altruism and the Human Mind*, consider it acceptable to offer altruistic options that, while perhaps not the most effective from a logical standpoint, may be more appealing to the general public (thus increasing the number of altruistic agents and the resulting altruistic action in general).
It is necessary to find a middle ground based on trial and error, always bearing in mind that increasing the number of people motivated to act altruistically should be the primary objective. Logically, I am referring to a motivation based on rational and enlightened principles, and one that takes into account the psychological, cultural, and social factors inherent in human altruistic behavior.
The main factor in “Effective Altruism” is altruistic motivation. Long-term options are not very motivating due to the cluelessness factor. Nor are options for animal welfare as motivating as those that involve reducing human suffering in the present moment.
When we have as many agents of “Effective Altruism” as, for example, followers of Jehovah’s Witnesses or communist militants (outside of communist states), then we will be able to make many more altruistic choices of all kinds. Isn’t this plausible?