One factor at play here is that the “best possible” thing to do isn’t just incredibly difficult to figure out, as you rightly say, but also an extremely (indeed impossibly) high standard. It’s human nature to have many different motivations, drives and values (in a broad, loose sense of ‘values’) besides purely altruistic ones. Few if any EAs I know do, and I certainly don’t judge them for this or want them to feel bad about it—apart from anything else, that wouldn’t help anyone :)
I expect pretending otherwise would be to place counter-productive pressure on people. Of course when there are valuable actions that people can viably take it can be good to nudge them into them, but there’s a balance to strike here, and it does no good to push people too far or too hard. But as you say there’s definitely a way to do this that’s nice, gentle and focuses on concrete improvements—after all, we’re all working together towards shared ends. The attitude that common sense practice and morality would recommend taking in this plausibly embodies some wisdom, informed by an understanding of human nature built up over the centuries.
It seems to me as if promoting effective altruism as doing the ‘most good possible’ exists for public relations purposes. For example, if effective altruism had a slogan that was less than doing the most good, and only, like, ‘pretty good’, than other altruistic endeavors could just state that they’re just as pretty good, or slightly better, and than effective altruism loses its footing. I concur that for most individuals doing literally what the most good possible won’t happen.
I’d re-frame our personal goal as at least ‘choosing the best option of those identified, given resources, available attention, time constraints, and not straining ourselves too much’. That’s not a motto Peter Singer can quip at the end of a lecture, but it’s something effective altruists can keep in mind once they’re on board with effective altruism.
One factor at play here is that the “best possible” thing to do isn’t just incredibly difficult to figure out, as you rightly say, but also an extremely (indeed impossibly) high standard. It’s human nature to have many different motivations, drives and values (in a broad, loose sense of ‘values’) besides purely altruistic ones. Few if any EAs I know do, and I certainly don’t judge them for this or want them to feel bad about it—apart from anything else, that wouldn’t help anyone :)
I expect pretending otherwise would be to place counter-productive pressure on people. Of course when there are valuable actions that people can viably take it can be good to nudge them into them, but there’s a balance to strike here, and it does no good to push people too far or too hard. But as you say there’s definitely a way to do this that’s nice, gentle and focuses on concrete improvements—after all, we’re all working together towards shared ends. The attitude that common sense practice and morality would recommend taking in this plausibly embodies some wisdom, informed by an understanding of human nature built up over the centuries.
Great post Jess!
It seems to me as if promoting effective altruism as doing the ‘most good possible’ exists for public relations purposes. For example, if effective altruism had a slogan that was less than doing the most good, and only, like, ‘pretty good’, than other altruistic endeavors could just state that they’re just as pretty good, or slightly better, and than effective altruism loses its footing. I concur that for most individuals doing literally what the most good possible won’t happen.
I’d re-frame our personal goal as at least ‘choosing the best option of those identified, given resources, available attention, time constraints, and not straining ourselves too much’. That’s not a motto Peter Singer can quip at the end of a lecture, but it’s something effective altruists can keep in mind once they’re on board with effective altruism.