Thanks! Yes, collecting some definitions and polling their respective popularity would be interesting!
I recently published an article on why the “give more” part is not necessary. For some people the best thing they can do – in objective utilitarian and possibly Rawlsian terms – is to invest in themselves. If giving more is restricted to giving to others, giving more and giving better would then be in conflict; if it is not restricted like that, it is just redundant since giving better already determines everything about where to give.
It’s also important to always use the superlative since we don’t want to incur opportunity costs. You do so in the body of the paragraph though. :‑)
I’ll post some quick definitions as comments to my comment because I recently thought of a “funny” one (Poe funny I guess).
+1 I’d avoid over-associating EA with just effective giving. E.g., startup-founding, political advocacy, and scientific research can all be undertaken with EA ideas in mind.
(a) “All lives have equal value” or (b) “All lives are morally relevant.”
“There are more or less desirable states of existence.”
1b is probably enough in most cases. I’ve heard of people who value people in their own country at least 100 times as highly as people outside, but that seems mind-bogglingly extreme. So long as this differential doesn’t reach the same orders of magnitude that exist between the cost-effectiveness estimates of interventions in the opposite direction, EA is still the forcible conclusion.
1a is stolen from the Gates Foundation. Does “lives” include animal lives?
Thanks! Yes, collecting some definitions and polling their respective popularity would be interesting!
I recently published an article on why the “give more” part is not necessary. For some people the best thing they can do – in objective utilitarian and possibly Rawlsian terms – is to invest in themselves. If giving more is restricted to giving to others, giving more and giving better would then be in conflict; if it is not restricted like that, it is just redundant since giving better already determines everything about where to give.
It’s also important to always use the superlative since we don’t want to incur opportunity costs. You do so in the body of the paragraph though. :‑)
I’ll post some quick definitions as comments to my comment because I recently thought of a “funny” one (Poe funny I guess).
And see also “Effective Altruism is a Question (not an ideology)” and the discussion underneath.
“How can I do the most good with the money and time I would’ve donated anyway?”
That’s sort of my take-away from Nick Cooney’s book, but he surely only tried not to be overly demanding of his readers, not to define EA.
+1 I’d avoid over-associating EA with just effective giving. E.g., startup-founding, political advocacy, and scientific research can all be undertaken with EA ideas in mind.
“Effective altruism is using evidence and analysis to take actions that help others as much as possible.”
From What is Effective Altruism. The definition I’ve been citing a lot recently.
Effective altruism is the question: “How can I minimize the opportunity cost of sentient beings I negligently kill or torture?”
The behaviors that follow when you accept:
(a) “All lives have equal value” or (b) “All lives are morally relevant.”
“There are more or less desirable states of existence.”
1b is probably enough in most cases. I’ve heard of people who value people in their own country at least 100 times as highly as people outside, but that seems mind-bogglingly extreme. So long as this differential doesn’t reach the same orders of magnitude that exist between the cost-effectiveness estimates of interventions in the opposite direction, EA is still the forcible conclusion.
1a is stolen from the Gates Foundation. Does “lives” include animal lives?