“you have to take seriously every position with huge implications provided it is not extremely implausible.”
Some views are ridiculously implausible even if you couldn’t out-debate some of their advocates.
So it all depends on what is plausible, even if you can’t refute what is implausible or not.
There may be many positions with huge implications, but you can’t take them all. You have to choose. And to do that, you have to judge: what criteria should be followed to trust the technical expertise of others, particularly in speculations as complex and far removed from the present as long-termism?
In the example of nuclear risk, let’s remember what happened in 1962. Was JFK crazy to force a crisis that could have led the world to destruction?
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?
So it all depends on what is plausible, even if you can’t refute what is implausible or not.
There may be many positions with huge implications, but you can’t take them all. You have to choose. And to do that, you have to judge: what criteria should be followed to trust the technical expertise of others, particularly in speculations as complex and far removed from the present as long-termism?
In the example of nuclear risk, let’s remember what happened in 1962. Was JFK crazy to force a crisis that could have led the world to destruction?
Why can’t you take seriously every plausible argument with huge implications?
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?