Pedantic, but I’m somewhat uncomfortable with the rhetoric of whether EAs “should” sign up for this (as in, they have an obligation to do so, which they are failing to live up to if they don’t), given the personal risks involved. (I think it’s reasonable to have a discussion on the object-level question of whether signing up scores well by EA lights – I’m not objecting to that – though I don’t personally have a formed opinion on this question either way.)
It interpreted this post as suggesting that participation was supererogatory. It’s true that some ethical systems (like classical consequentialism) don’t include supererogatory acts, but that seems like a flaw with those systems. Certainly when I typically tell someone they ‘should’ get a new credit card, or eat more spinach, I don’t intend to imply this is mandatory. Nor does this suggestion seem that different from other requests we make of EAs—the additional risk to a healthy young person is probably a much smaller sacrifice than 10% of one’s lifetime earnings!
the additional risk to a healthy young person is probably a much smaller sacrifice than 10% of one’s lifetime earnings
FWIW, I’m also against people saying “EAs should give at least 10% of their income to charity” – this makes people who don’t want to make that sort of commitment feel unwelcome, and my sense is that rhetoric along those lines has hurt movement growth.
Thanks for the comments! Just wanted to quickly say that Larks’s interpretation of our intention was correct: we view participation in this study is superogatory (and are really making the argument that this study might be in the range of actions that are considered effective altruist).
Pedantic, but I’m somewhat uncomfortable with the rhetoric of whether EAs “should” sign up for this (as in, they have an obligation to do so, which they are failing to live up to if they don’t), given the personal risks involved. (I think it’s reasonable to have a discussion on the object-level question of whether signing up scores well by EA lights – I’m not objecting to that – though I don’t personally have a formed opinion on this question either way.)
It interpreted this post as suggesting that participation was supererogatory. It’s true that some ethical systems (like classical consequentialism) don’t include supererogatory acts, but that seems like a flaw with those systems. Certainly when I typically tell someone they ‘should’ get a new credit card, or eat more spinach, I don’t intend to imply this is mandatory. Nor does this suggestion seem that different from other requests we make of EAs—the additional risk to a healthy young person is probably a much smaller sacrifice than 10% of one’s lifetime earnings!
FWIW, I’m also against people saying “EAs should give at least 10% of their income to charity” – this makes people who don’t want to make that sort of commitment feel unwelcome, and my sense is that rhetoric along those lines has hurt movement growth.
Thanks for the comments! Just wanted to quickly say that Larks’s interpretation of our intention was correct: we view participation in this study is superogatory (and are really making the argument that this study might be in the range of actions that are considered effective altruist).