This seems like a semantic issue, but I think it is occasionally more than one. Some EA meta-organisations, like CEA, OpenPhil, Giving What We Can, 80K etc… work on promoting a range of EA causes. Occasionally, the organisations themselves or their supporters justify this with reference to “cause neutrality.”[1] I think they are wrong to do so, and this is the gripe that motivates my post.
I agree. The organisations often point to the importance of worldview diversification or plurarily instead of arguing in detail why they think the areas have similar marginal cost-effectiveness. As far as I know, all effective givinginitiatives (EGIs) assume the best animal and human welfare interventions are equally cost-effective.
Thanks, Toby!
I agree. The organisations often point to the importance of worldview diversification or plurarily instead of arguing in detail why they think the areas have similar marginal cost-effectiveness. As far as I know, all effective giving initiatives (EGIs) assume the best animal and human welfare interventions are equally cost-effective.