In an era where new movements for social change are sorely lacking, the emergence of this “family of consequentialist altruists” (from “Giving What We Canl” onward) has been a welcome development of the past twenty years.
Rationally organized altruism (as opposed to altruism based on biases, traditions, sentimentality, and prejudices) may seem at first glance to be a modest contribution, but it holds the key to human social progress, as it represents a step toward an “altruistic economy,” characteristic of advanced prosociality.
The problem is that, like other initiatives for non-political social progress (for example, self-managed egalitarianism), it doesn’t seem to be succeeding. The “Effective Altruism” community isn’t expanding.
If five or ten million intellectually well-educated individuals from the most privileged social sectors (roughly the profile of an EA activist) were contributing to the movement at the level, for example, of Mr. Toby Ord, we would not only have extraordinarily positive “consequentialist results” that would alleviate the suffering of millions of people enduring a ruthless social order, but, more importantly, we would be witnessing a social paradigm shift at all levels.
But the number of EA “believers” is far lower than that; it is not significant enough in terms of cultural change. We should not fall into the “consequentialist trap” that says “a little is better than nothing”: EA should be conceived as a stage of civilizational progress, but perhaps it is a stage in the process of completion.
There is no “motivating force” in EA. EA is failing to connect emotionally with millions of people morally disposed to “make a better world” in the face of the scandalous inequalities of today’s world. In its “academic aseptic” approach, it is losing sight of the psychological possibilities of a movement for social change that should appeal to the ethical emotionality of empathy, caring, transcendence, and a sense of community. And in doing so, it is engaging in “consequentialism wrong”… because we urgently need to mobilize more people to practice more effective charity.
My suggestion: recognize altruism as part of a human conception of virtue that necessarily encompasses principles of prosocial behavior based on benevolence, mutual care, aggression control, and transcendent emotionality. We need to produce “saints,” not mere consequentialist agents. That can be emotionally rewarding for many (as old monasticism was) and act as an actual motivating force. And for that, there are strategies available that can be selected by trial and error based on logical criteria of “effective altruism” and consequentialism.
Yes! The EA movement is so fascinating beacuse it is such a welcome and refreshing set of values and ideas, but also frustrating in that it feels like it fails in being an effective social movement.
I think one key part of the puzzle for me in understanding this was seeing that EA is, in addition to a professional community, a social community. And the mingling of social and professional interests has created some dynamics which aren’t the most effective for the movement itself.
As I discuss in the conclusion, I’m not sure whether the EA movement can be reformed to grow effectively as a social movement. But I am sure that this case study can be very useful for other social movements based on similar values (eg. nerdfighteria, school for moral ambition, effective philanthropy).
Very good post.
In an era where new movements for social change are sorely lacking, the emergence of this “family of consequentialist altruists” (from “Giving What We Canl” onward) has been a welcome development of the past twenty years.
Rationally organized altruism (as opposed to altruism based on biases, traditions, sentimentality, and prejudices) may seem at first glance to be a modest contribution, but it holds the key to human social progress, as it represents a step toward an “altruistic economy,” characteristic of advanced prosociality.
The problem is that, like other initiatives for non-political social progress (for example, self-managed egalitarianism), it doesn’t seem to be succeeding. The “Effective Altruism” community isn’t expanding.
If five or ten million intellectually well-educated individuals from the most privileged social sectors (roughly the profile of an EA activist) were contributing to the movement at the level, for example, of Mr. Toby Ord, we would not only have extraordinarily positive “consequentialist results” that would alleviate the suffering of millions of people enduring a ruthless social order, but, more importantly, we would be witnessing a social paradigm shift at all levels.
But the number of EA “believers” is far lower than that; it is not significant enough in terms of cultural change. We should not fall into the “consequentialist trap” that says “a little is better than nothing”: EA should be conceived as a stage of civilizational progress, but perhaps it is a stage in the process of completion.
There is no “motivating force” in EA. EA is failing to connect emotionally with millions of people morally disposed to “make a better world” in the face of the scandalous inequalities of today’s world. In its “academic aseptic” approach, it is losing sight of the psychological possibilities of a movement for social change that should appeal to the ethical emotionality of empathy, caring, transcendence, and a sense of community. And in doing so, it is engaging in “consequentialism wrong”… because we urgently need to mobilize more people to practice more effective charity.
My suggestion: recognize altruism as part of a human conception of virtue that necessarily encompasses principles of prosocial behavior based on benevolence, mutual care, aggression control, and transcendent emotionality. We need to produce “saints,” not mere consequentialist agents. That can be emotionally rewarding for many (as old monasticism was) and act as an actual motivating force. And for that, there are strategies available that can be selected by trial and error based on logical criteria of “effective altruism” and consequentialism.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uaGR6yhpEmdtgncuZ/altruism-and-minority-influence
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7tjbCRCb6FSdCKgyP/leo-tolstoy-s-philosophy-altruism-and-non-violence
Yes! The EA movement is so fascinating beacuse it is such a welcome and refreshing set of values and ideas, but also frustrating in that it feels like it fails in being an effective social movement.
I think one key part of the puzzle for me in understanding this was seeing that EA is, in addition to a professional community, a social community. And the mingling of social and professional interests has created some dynamics which aren’t the most effective for the movement itself.
As I discuss in the conclusion, I’m not sure whether the EA movement can be reformed to grow effectively as a social movement. But I am sure that this case study can be very useful for other social movements based on similar values (eg. nerdfighteria, school for moral ambition, effective philanthropy).