A criticism of EA I see all the time: “Buying bednets for people in the third world is paternalistic, elevates the giver over the receiver, etc.”
A criticism of EA I never see: “Donating to political candidates in the US is paternalistic, elevates the giver over the receiver, etc.”
I find this strange because the latter seems at least as paternalistic as the former—using money to try and impact the political process for the good of the world says “I know what’s good for you more than you do”. This may be true in some cases, but still - why do people critique the first, and not the second?
Theories, in rough order of most likely to least likely:
- Critics don’t realise EA’s involvement in politics is growing yet. Most paternalism claims of EA come from people outside of EA, so we should expect them to be more likely to know about highly visible stuff that’s been going on for years.
- Paternalism critiques of EA come from the left, and when EA tries to impact politics they pick Democrat candidates. People don’t think of “paternalism” except when it comes to things they disagree with.
- People have mentioned this criticism somewhere, and I just haven’t seen it.
- EA donors tend to be Western, so they’re from the same culture they aim to influence, which makes it okay.
A criticism of EA I see all the time: “Buying bednets for people in the third world is paternalistic, elevates the giver over the receiver, etc.”
A criticism of EA I never see: “Donating to political candidates in the US is paternalistic, elevates the giver over the receiver, etc.”
I find this strange because the latter seems at least as paternalistic as the former—using money to try and impact the political process for the good of the world says “I know what’s good for you more than you do”. This may be true in some cases, but still - why do people critique the first, and not the second?
Theories, in rough order of most likely to least likely:
- Critics don’t realise EA’s involvement in politics is growing yet. Most paternalism claims of EA come from people outside of EA, so we should expect them to be more likely to know about highly visible stuff that’s been going on for years.
- Paternalism critiques of EA come from the left, and when EA tries to impact politics they pick Democrat candidates. People don’t think of “paternalism” except when it comes to things they disagree with.
- People have mentioned this criticism somewhere, and I just haven’t seen it.
- EA donors tend to be Western, so they’re from the same culture they aim to influence, which makes it okay.
Curious about people’s thoughts on this.