EA is theoretically compatible with a wide range of moral views, but our own rhetoric often conflates EA with utilitarianism. Right now, if you hold moral views other than utilitarianism (including variants of utilitarianism such as negative utilitarianism), you often have to do your own homework as to what those views imply you should do to achieve the greatest good. Therefore, we should spend more effort making EA appeal to a wider range of moral views besides utilitarianism.
What this could entail:
More practical advice (including donation and career advice) for altruists with common moral views besides utilitarianism, such as:
Views that emphasize distributive justice, such as prioritarianism and egalitarianism
This blog post from 2016 claims that EA priorities, at least in the global health and development space, are aligned with prioritarian and egalitarian views. However, this might not generalize to other EA causes such as longtermism.
Special consideration for rectifying historical injustices
Creating donation funds for people who hold moral views other than utilitarianism
Describing EA in ways that generalize to moral views besides utilitarianism, at least in some introductory texts
I incorrectly (at 4a.m.) first read this as saying āWould this include making EA apparelā¦for views like nativism and traditionalism?ā, and my mind immediately started imagining pithy slogans to put on t-shirts for EAs who believe saving a single soul has more expected value than any current EA longtermist view (because ā>3^^^3).
A nativist may believe that the inhabitants of oneās own country or region should be prioritized over others when allocating altruistic resources.
A traditionalist may perceive value in maintaining traditional norms and institutions, and seek interventions to effectively strengthen norms which they perceive as being eroded.
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I think EA should (and already does, to some extent) give practical advice to people who prioritize the interests of their own community. Since many normies do prioritize their own communities, doing this could help them get their feet in the door of the EA movement. But I would hope that they would eventually come to appreciate cosmopolitanism.
As for traditionalism, it depends on the traditional norm or institution. For example, I wouldnāt be comfortable with someone claiming to represent the EA movement advising donors on how to ādo homophobia betterā or reinforce traditional sexual norms more effectively, as I think these norms are bad for freedom, equality, and well-being. At least the views we accommodate should perhaps not run counter to the core values that animate utilitarianism.
I actually think EA is inherently utilitarian, and a lot of the value it provides is allowing utilitarias to have a conversation among ourselves without having to argue the basic points of utilitarianism with every other moral view. For example, if a person is a nativist (prioritizing the well being of their own country-people), then they definitionally arenāt an EA. I donāt want EA to appeal to them, because I donāt want every conversation to be slowed down by having to argue with them, or at least find another way to filter them out. EA is supposed to be the mechanism to filter the nativists out of the conversation.
For those disagreeing with this idea, is it because you think EA should only appeal to utilitarians, should not try to appeal to other moral views more than it does, or should try to appeal to other moral views but not too much?
#2. From the absolute beginnings, EA has been vocal about being broader than utilitarianism. The proposal being voted on here looks instead like elevating progressivism to the same status as utilitarianism, which is a bad idea.
Making EA appeal to a wider range of moral views
EA is theoretically compatible with a wide range of moral views, but our own rhetoric often conflates EA with utilitarianism. Right now, if you hold moral views other than utilitarianism (including variants of utilitarianism such as negative utilitarianism), you often have to do your own homework as to what those views imply you should do to achieve the greatest good. Therefore, we should spend more effort making EA appeal to a wider range of moral views besides utilitarianism.
What this could entail:
More practical advice (including donation and career advice) for altruists with common moral views besides utilitarianism, such as:
Views that emphasize distributive justice, such as prioritarianism and egalitarianism
This blog post from 2016 claims that EA priorities, at least in the global health and development space, are aligned with prioritarian and egalitarian views. However, this might not generalize to other EA causes such as longtermism.
Special consideration for rectifying historical injustices
Creating donation funds for people who hold moral views other than utilitarianism
Describing EA in ways that generalize to moral views besides utilitarianism, at least in some introductory texts
Would this include making EA appeal to and include practical advice for views like nativism and traditionalism?
Letās not forget retributionāensuring that wrongdoers experience the suffering that they deserve. Or more modestly, disregarding their well-being.
I incorrectly (at 4a.m.) first read this as saying āWould this include making EA apparelā¦for views like nativism and traditionalism?ā, and my mind immediately started imagining pithy slogans to put on t-shirts for EAs who believe saving a single soul has more expected value than any current EA longtermist view (because ā>3^^^3).
What do you mean by nativism and traditionalism?
A nativist may believe that the inhabitants of oneās own country or region should be prioritized over others when allocating altruistic resources.
A traditionalist may perceive value in maintaining traditional norms and institutions, and seek interventions to effectively strengthen norms which they perceive as being eroded.
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I think EA should (and already does, to some extent) give practical advice to people who prioritize the interests of their own community. Since many normies do prioritize their own communities, doing this could help them get their feet in the door of the EA movement. But I would hope that they would eventually come to appreciate cosmopolitanism.
As for traditionalism, it depends on the traditional norm or institution. For example, I wouldnāt be comfortable with someone claiming to represent the EA movement advising donors on how to ādo homophobia betterā or reinforce traditional sexual norms more effectively, as I think these norms are bad for freedom, equality, and well-being. At least the views we accommodate should perhaps not run counter to the core values that animate utilitarianism.
I actually think EA is inherently utilitarian, and a lot of the value it provides is allowing utilitarias to have a conversation among ourselves without having to argue the basic points of utilitarianism with every other moral view. For example, if a person is a nativist (prioritizing the well being of their own country-people), then they definitionally arenāt an EA. I donāt want EA to appeal to them, because I donāt want every conversation to be slowed down by having to argue with them, or at least find another way to filter them out. EA is supposed to be the mechanism to filter the nativists out of the conversation.
For those disagreeing with this idea, is it because you think EA should only appeal to utilitarians, should not try to appeal to other moral views more than it does, or should try to appeal to other moral views but not too much?
#2. From the absolute beginnings, EA has been vocal about being broader than utilitarianism. The proposal being voted on here looks instead like elevating progressivism to the same status as utilitarianism, which is a bad idea.