Iād like to see more basic public philosophy arguing for effective altruism and against its critics. (I obviously do this a bunch, and am puzzled that there isnāt more of it, particularly from philosophers whoāunlike meāare actually employed by EA orgs!)
One way that EAIF could help with this is by reaching out to promising candidates (well-respected philosophers who seem broadly sympathetic to EA principles) to see whether they could productively use a course buyout to provide time for EA-related public philosophy. (This could of course include constructively criticizing EA, or suggesting ways to improve, in addition toāwhat I tend to see as the higher priorityādrawing attention to apt EA criticisms of ordinary moral thought and behavior and ways that everyone else could clearly improve by taking these lessons on board.)
A specific example that springs to mind is Richard Pettigrew. He independently wrote an excellent, measured criticism of Leif Wenarās nonsense, and also reviewed the Crary et al volume in a top academic journal (Mind, iirc). Heās a very highly-regarded philosopher, and Iād love to see him engage more with EA ideas. Maybe a course buyout from EAIF could make that happen? Seems worth exploring, in any case.
Iād be worried thatāeven assuming the funding did not actually influence the content of the speechāthe author being perceived as on the EA payroll would seriously diminish the effectiveness of this work. Maybe that is less true in the context of a professional journal where the authorās reputation is well-known to the reader than it would be somewhere like Wired, though?
Iād like to see more basic public philosophy arguing for effective altruism and against its critics. (I obviously do this a bunch, and am puzzled that there isnāt more of it, particularly from philosophers whoāunlike meāare actually employed by EA orgs!)
One way that EAIF could help with this is by reaching out to promising candidates (well-respected philosophers who seem broadly sympathetic to EA principles) to see whether they could productively use a course buyout to provide time for EA-related public philosophy. (This could of course include constructively criticizing EA, or suggesting ways to improve, in addition toāwhat I tend to see as the higher priorityādrawing attention to apt EA criticisms of ordinary moral thought and behavior and ways that everyone else could clearly improve by taking these lessons on board.)
A specific example that springs to mind is Richard Pettigrew. He independently wrote an excellent, measured criticism of Leif Wenarās nonsense, and also reviewed the Crary et al volume in a top academic journal (Mind, iirc). Heās a very highly-regarded philosopher, and Iād love to see him engage more with EA ideas. Maybe a course buyout from EAIF could make that happen? Seems worth exploring, in any case.
Iād be worried thatāeven assuming the funding did not actually influence the content of the speechāthe author being perceived as on the EA payroll would seriously diminish the effectiveness of this work. Maybe that is less true in the context of a professional journal where the authorās reputation is well-known to the reader than it would be somewhere like Wired, though?