Thanks for writing this up. I’m convinced by your responses to the efficiency, efficacy, and partisanship objections.
I worry, however, about the idea of influence itself. My worry is about a particular form of influence: lobbying. To try influence a government via lobbying is to try to change policy via non-democratic means, in ways that are not accountable to citizens. EA wants to operate within the side-constraints of rights, which includes (or I think, should include) respecting citizens’ rights to self-determination. By attempting to sidestep the democratic process, EA risks violating this right.
This is especially worrisome to me because EA’s broadly consequentialist philosophy is not shared by most people. Even if commonsense morality is wrong, and consequentialism is right, we might be wrong to shape policy according to consequentialist principles. And it would seem additionally wrong to persuade governments to use their citizens’ resources on causes that citizens themselves don’t endorse, or aren’t even aware of the reasons for or against. The idea of public reason in liberal political philosophy expresses this view: that free and equal citizens deserve justification for the rules and institutions that shape their lives. Because lobbying subverts justification, it seems to contravene this principle of equality.
It’s true that EA would just be playing the same game as other interest groups, but I’m not sure that is what we should be doing. Better to influence governments through the front end, e.g. by changing the public’s ideas and perception, as you detail in Appendix 1.
First, not all EAs agree that all side-constraints should be binding. Second, most lobbying isn’t about donations—donations are used to help get someone elected, instead of their opponent, but that doesn’t usually get the politician to change their mind on a topic—it just gets to donor time to discuss things with the elected official. And so, third, informing government officials often simply makes the issue salient, rather than changing opinions—most of the time, for most topics, governments don’t do X because they are busy and no-one got it on their agenda. Lobbying can change that. Of course, some lobbying is more pernicious—but I think that those types of lobbying aren’t necessary for many EA causes, which are already widely shared, if unreflectively.
I’m kind of confused by what you mean by non-democratic? Lobbyists talk to democratically elected representatives who vote on issues. Unless you’re talking about trying to change policy by influencing executive orders? Or only using ballot initiatives?
Legal challenges that go through the courts are also “non-democratic” in that they aren’t decided by majority vote, right? But they’re part of the system of checks and balances, and sometimes that’s an important route to make progress.
Thanks for writing this up. I’m convinced by your responses to the efficiency, efficacy, and partisanship objections.
I worry, however, about the idea of influence itself. My worry is about a particular form of influence: lobbying. To try influence a government via lobbying is to try to change policy via non-democratic means, in ways that are not accountable to citizens. EA wants to operate within the side-constraints of rights, which includes (or I think, should include) respecting citizens’ rights to self-determination. By attempting to sidestep the democratic process, EA risks violating this right.
This is especially worrisome to me because EA’s broadly consequentialist philosophy is not shared by most people. Even if commonsense morality is wrong, and consequentialism is right, we might be wrong to shape policy according to consequentialist principles. And it would seem additionally wrong to persuade governments to use their citizens’ resources on causes that citizens themselves don’t endorse, or aren’t even aware of the reasons for or against. The idea of public reason in liberal political philosophy expresses this view: that free and equal citizens deserve justification for the rules and institutions that shape their lives. Because lobbying subverts justification, it seems to contravene this principle of equality.
It’s true that EA would just be playing the same game as other interest groups, but I’m not sure that is what we should be doing. Better to influence governments through the front end, e.g. by changing the public’s ideas and perception, as you detail in Appendix 1.
First, not all EAs agree that all side-constraints should be binding. Second, most lobbying isn’t about donations—donations are used to help get someone elected, instead of their opponent, but that doesn’t usually get the politician to change their mind on a topic—it just gets to donor time to discuss things with the elected official. And so, third, informing government officials often simply makes the issue salient, rather than changing opinions—most of the time, for most topics, governments don’t do X because they are busy and no-one got it on their agenda. Lobbying can change that. Of course, some lobbying is more pernicious—but I think that those types of lobbying aren’t necessary for many EA causes, which are already widely shared, if unreflectively.
I’m kind of confused by what you mean by non-democratic? Lobbyists talk to democratically elected representatives who vote on issues. Unless you’re talking about trying to change policy by influencing executive orders? Or only using ballot initiatives?
Legal challenges that go through the courts are also “non-democratic” in that they aren’t decided by majority vote, right? But they’re part of the system of checks and balances, and sometimes that’s an important route to make progress.