Looking at EAās history can show us strong and in many cases negative influence from utilitarian ideas.
It also shows strong and in vastly more cases positive influence from (what you call) āutilitarianā ideas (but really ought to be more universalāideas like that it is better to do more good than less, and that quantification can help us to make such trade-offs on the basis of something other than mere vibes).
Unless thereās some reason to think that the negative outweighs the positive, you havenāt actually given us anyreason to think that āutilitarian influenceā is a bad thing.
Quick sanity check: when I look at any other major social movement, it strikes me as vastly worse than EA (per person or $ spent), in ways that are very plausibly attributable to their being insufficiently āutilitarianā (that is, insufficiently concerned with effectiveness, insufficiently wide moral circles, and insufficiently appreciative of how strong our moral reasons are to do more good).
If youāre arguing āEA should be more like every other social movementā, you should probably first check whether those alternatives are actually doing a better job!
Yes! I donāt deny the positive impact that has come from EA, and the focus on quantification, and have tried to touch on that in the conclusion section as well. I very much believe everyone would benefit from better use of quantification, evidence, and rationality.
Iām not sure Iāve got the arguments or evidence to say whether EAās utilitarian influence is net positive or negative (and Iāve seen arguments in both directions), but thatās not my point here. Iām not arguing from a utilitarian basis. Iām trying to paint a picture of the scope and impact of utilitarian thoughtās negative impacts on EA to try to help EAs and other people invested in doing good better evaluate the impacts and viability of such an ideology. This is only meant to be one piece of the puzzle.
Your executive summary (quoted below) appears to outright assert that quantification is āharmfulā and āresults in poor decision makingā. I donāt think those claims are well-supported.
If you paint a picture that focuses only on negatives and ignores positives, itās apt to be a very misleading picture. There may be possible ways to frame such a project so that it comes off as just āone piece of the puzzleā rather than as trying to bias its readership towards a negative judgment. But itās an inherently risky/ādifficult undertaking (prone to moral misdirection), and I donāt feel like the rhetorical framing of this article succeeds in conveying such neutrality.
A Utilitarian Ideology
The EA ideology, a set of moral ideas, values, and practices, includes problematic and harmful ideas. Specifically, the ideology ties morality to quantified impact which results in poor decision making, encourages ends justify the means reasoning, and disregards individuality, resulting in crippling responsibility on individuals and burnout.
It also shows strong and in vastly more cases positive influence from (what you call) āutilitarianā ideas (but really ought to be more universalāideas like that it is better to do more good than less, and that quantification can help us to make such trade-offs on the basis of something other than mere vibes).
Unless thereās some reason to think that the negative outweighs the positive, you havenāt actually given us any reason to think that āutilitarian influenceā is a bad thing.
Quick sanity check: when I look at any other major social movement, it strikes me as vastly worse than EA (per person or $ spent), in ways that are very plausibly attributable to their being insufficiently āutilitarianā (that is, insufficiently concerned with effectiveness, insufficiently wide moral circles, and insufficiently appreciative of how strong our moral reasons are to do more good).
If youāre arguing āEA should be more like every other social movementā, you should probably first check whether those alternatives are actually doing a better job!
Yes! I donāt deny the positive impact that has come from EA, and the focus on quantification, and have tried to touch on that in the conclusion section as well. I very much believe everyone would benefit from better use of quantification, evidence, and rationality.
Iām not sure Iāve got the arguments or evidence to say whether EAās utilitarian influence is net positive or negative (and Iāve seen arguments in both directions), but thatās not my point here. Iām not arguing from a utilitarian basis. Iām trying to paint a picture of the scope and impact of utilitarian thoughtās negative impacts on EA to try to help EAs and other people invested in doing good better evaluate the impacts and viability of such an ideology. This is only meant to be one piece of the puzzle.
Your executive summary (quoted below) appears to outright assert that quantification is āharmfulā and āresults in poor decision makingā. I donāt think those claims are well-supported.
If you paint a picture that focuses only on negatives and ignores positives, itās apt to be a very misleading picture. There may be possible ways to frame such a project so that it comes off as just āone piece of the puzzleā rather than as trying to bias its readership towards a negative judgment. But itās an inherently risky/ādifficult undertaking (prone to moral misdirection), and I donāt feel like the rhetorical framing of this article succeeds in conveying such neutrality.