I think you’re right that there are two meanings, and I’m primarily pointing to the failures on the more obviously bad level. But your view—that no given level is good enough, and we need to do marginally more—is still not equivalent to the maximizing view that I see and worry about. The view I’m talking about is an imperative to only do the best thing, not to do lesser good things.
And I think that the conception of binary effectiveness usually leads to the failure modes I pointed out. Unless and until the first half of Will’s Effective Altruism is complete—an impossible goal, in my view—we need to ensure that we’re doing more good at each step, not trying to ensure we do the most good, and nothing less.
I think you’re right that there are two meanings, and I’m primarily pointing to the failures on the more obviously bad level. But your view—that no given level is good enough, and we need to do marginally more—is still not equivalent to the maximizing view that I see and worry about. The view I’m talking about is an imperative to only do the best thing, not to do lesser good things.
And I think that the conception of binary effectiveness usually leads to the failure modes I pointed out. Unless and until the first half of Will’s Effective Altruism is complete—an impossible goal, in my view—we need to ensure that we’re doing more good at each step, not trying to ensure we do the most good, and nothing less.