I mean, itās undeniable that the best thing is best. Itās not like thereās some (coherent) alternative view that denies this. So I take it the real question is how much pressure one should feel towards doing the impartial best (at cost of significant self-sacrifice); whether the maximum should be viewed as the baseline for minimal acceptability, and anything short of it constitutes failure, or whether we rather aim to normalize something more modest and simply celebrate further good beyond that point as an extra bonus.
I can see pathologies in both directions here. I donāt think it makes sense to treat perfection as the baseline, such that any realistic outcome automatically qualifies as failure. For anyone to think that way would seem quite confused. (Which is not to deny that it can happen.) But also, it would seem a bit pathological to refuse to celebrate moral saints? Like, obviously there is something very impressive about moral heroism and extreme altruism that goes beyond what I personally would be willing to sacrifice for others? I think the crucial thing is just to frame it positively rather than negatively, and donāt get confused about where the baseline or zero-point properly lies.
I largely agree with this, but I feel like your tone is too dismissive of the issue here? Like: the problem is that the maximizing mindset (encouraged by EA), applied to the question of how much to apply the maximizing mindset, says to go all in. This isnāt getting communicated explicitly in EA materials, but I think itās an implicit message which many people receive. And although I think that itās unhealthy to think that way, I donāt think people are dumb for receiving this message; I think itās a pretty natural principled answer to reach, and the alternative answers feel unprincipled.
Given this, my worry is that expressing things like āEA aims to be maximizing in the second sense onlyā may be kind of gaslight-y to some peopleās experience (although I agree that other people will think itās a fair summary of the message they personally understood).
I mean, itās undeniable that the best thing is best. Itās not like thereās some (coherent) alternative view that denies this. So I take it the real question is how much pressure one should feel towards doing the impartial best (at cost of significant self-sacrifice); whether the maximum should be viewed as the baseline for minimal acceptability, and anything short of it constitutes failure, or whether we rather aim to normalize something more modest and simply celebrate further good beyond that point as an extra bonus.
I can see pathologies in both directions here. I donāt think it makes sense to treat perfection as the baseline, such that any realistic outcome automatically qualifies as failure. For anyone to think that way would seem quite confused. (Which is not to deny that it can happen.) But also, it would seem a bit pathological to refuse to celebrate moral saints? Like, obviously there is something very impressive about moral heroism and extreme altruism that goes beyond what I personally would be willing to sacrifice for others? I think the crucial thing is just to frame it positively rather than negatively, and donāt get confused about where the baseline or zero-point properly lies.
I largely agree with this, but I feel like your tone is too dismissive of the issue here? Like: the problem is that the maximizing mindset (encouraged by EA), applied to the question of how much to apply the maximizing mindset, says to go all in. This isnāt getting communicated explicitly in EA materials, but I think itās an implicit message which many people receive. And although I think that itās unhealthy to think that way, I donāt think people are dumb for receiving this message; I think itās a pretty natural principled answer to reach, and the alternative answers feel unprincipled.
Given this, my worry is that expressing things like āEA aims to be maximizing in the second sense onlyā may be kind of gaslight-y to some peopleās experience (although I agree that other people will think itās a fair summary of the message they personally understood).