Iâm a big fan of EA philosophy and the people Iâve met through EA. But I think of EA as a philosophy/âmovement/âpersonal practice, not a political party or a religion or any other thing that naturally seems to grant an â-istâ label.
It seems weird to push back against these sentences, since theyâre is about your personal perceptions and what you want to /â feel comfortable identifying with. But these sentences seem a bit odd to me, because I think people do use â-istâ labels for many philosophies, movements, and personal practices, not just political parties or religions or things like that.
Some examples:
Deontologist
Virtue ethicist
Feminist
Pianist
Novelist
And I think â-ianâ labels are basically equivalent (with the distinction between about what letters precede them or something like that, rather than something deeper). In which case, examples like utilitarian and vegetarian are also relevant.
Maybe your perceptions on this arenât really driven by the â-istâ label alone, but by that label plus it being attached to the sort of community of people that seem more likely to form a shared identity, shared ideological blindspots, or similar than e.g. pianists or novelists would be?
Youâve drawn a good distinction here, and I should revise what I said before.
In my previous comment, I lazily copied the explanation I use to tell people they shouldnât capitalize âeffective altruismâ (âitâs not a religionâ). As you say, it doesnât fit here.
The thing I donât like about applying â-istâ labeling to EA is the addition of âeffectiveâ, which (as many others have said) seems to presume impact in a way that seems a bit arrogant and, more importantly, is really hard to prove.
Are you a pianist? Yes, you play the piano.
Are you a virtue ethicist? Yes, you believe that virtue ethics are correct (or whatever).
Are you an altruist? Yes, you give some of your resources to other people for reasons outside of law, contracts, etc.
Are you a great pianist? âŚmaybe? What defines âgreatâ?
Are you an effective altruist? âŚmaybe? What defines âeffectiveâ? You might hold a bunch of ethical beliefs that lots of other people who use that label also hold, but it seems unclear exactly which set of beliefs is sufficient for the label to fit. (And even if we could settle on some canonical set, the word âeffectiveâ still seems presumptive in a way I donât want to apply to individual people.)
It seems weird to push back against these sentences, since theyâre is about your personal perceptions and what you want to /â feel comfortable identifying with. But these sentences seem a bit odd to me, because I think people do use â-istâ labels for many philosophies, movements, and personal practices, not just political parties or religions or things like that.
Some examples:
Deontologist
Virtue ethicist
Feminist
Pianist
Novelist
And I think â-ianâ labels are basically equivalent (with the distinction between about what letters precede them or something like that, rather than something deeper). In which case, examples like utilitarian and vegetarian are also relevant.
Maybe your perceptions on this arenât really driven by the â-istâ label alone, but by that label plus it being attached to the sort of community of people that seem more likely to form a shared identity, shared ideological blindspots, or similar than e.g. pianists or novelists would be?
Youâve drawn a good distinction here, and I should revise what I said before.
In my previous comment, I lazily copied the explanation I use to tell people they shouldnât capitalize âeffective altruismâ (âitâs not a religionâ). As you say, it doesnât fit here.
The thing I donât like about applying â-istâ labeling to EA is the addition of âeffectiveâ, which (as many others have said) seems to presume impact in a way that seems a bit arrogant and, more importantly, is really hard to prove.
Are you a pianist? Yes, you play the piano.
Are you a virtue ethicist? Yes, you believe that virtue ethics are correct (or whatever).
Are you an altruist? Yes, you give some of your resources to other people for reasons outside of law, contracts, etc.
Are you a great pianist? âŚmaybe? What defines âgreatâ?
Are you an effective altruist? âŚmaybe? What defines âeffectiveâ? You might hold a bunch of ethical beliefs that lots of other people who use that label also hold, but it seems unclear exactly which set of beliefs is sufficient for the label to fit. (And even if we could settle on some canonical set, the word âeffectiveâ still seems presumptive in a way I donât want to apply to individual people.)