I certainly see the parallels with 19th century technocratic progressivism (which for all its faults seems to have had a positive influence on net), and I am not questioning the author’s broader point that “improving philanthropy can be a dangerous business”.
Now, if you look at the specifics of what the Charity Society Organization believed, I find it unlikely EAs would make the same sort of mistakes.
- The idea that private charity is intrinsically preferrable to public spending when it comes to alleviating poverty is not really an EA issue. The movement was not created in opposition to public spending and has never set out to draw that sort of separation line (to my knowledge). My read is that you can easily be pro-EA as a social democrat or Third Way type who would welcome higher public spending on anti-poverty programmes, provided they achieve their goals. There is no particular tension there.
- The idea that there are deserving and undeserving poor seems to be in direct contradiction with the sort of broad-based, every-human-being-matters, “utilitarian-ish” worldview that you often find at the moral core of EA.
- As for the appeal of eugenism, I am somewhat more worried that similar mistakes might happen, since certain brands of utilitarianism have served as a gateway drug to that thinking in the past. However the EA approach to utilitarianism seems to be a lot more sophisticated. So far I haven’t seen any particular tendency for EA to propose Bond-villain schemes that would directly harm others “for the greater good”.
However, if I try to abstract away some of the common elements between those past mistakes, there does seem to be a pattern we can learn from, namely:
Do not turn use rationality as a cover for contemptuous views of others
Do not presuppose you know better than others what’s good for them
Do not try to do good in spite of people, or against their consent
If “rationality”, “science” or “efficiency” lead you to extraordinarily strange, “yuck” actions that cause direct harm to others, there’s a good chance the “yuck” factor is not just your irrationality speaking. You’re probably just wrong.
I certainly see the parallels with 19th century technocratic progressivism (which for all its faults seems to have had a positive influence on net), and I am not questioning the author’s broader point that “improving philanthropy can be a dangerous business”.
Now, if you look at the specifics of what the Charity Society Organization believed, I find it unlikely EAs would make the same sort of mistakes.
- The idea that private charity is intrinsically preferrable to public spending when it comes to alleviating poverty is not really an EA issue. The movement was not created in opposition to public spending and has never set out to draw that sort of separation line (to my knowledge). My read is that you can easily be pro-EA as a social democrat or Third Way type who would welcome higher public spending on anti-poverty programmes, provided they achieve their goals. There is no particular tension there.
- The idea that there are deserving and undeserving poor seems to be in direct contradiction with the sort of broad-based, every-human-being-matters, “utilitarian-ish” worldview that you often find at the moral core of EA.
- As for the appeal of eugenism, I am somewhat more worried that similar mistakes might happen, since certain brands of utilitarianism have served as a gateway drug to that thinking in the past. However the EA approach to utilitarianism seems to be a lot more sophisticated. So far I haven’t seen any particular tendency for EA to propose Bond-villain schemes that would directly harm others “for the greater good”.
However, if I try to abstract away some of the common elements between those past mistakes, there does seem to be a pattern we can learn from, namely:
Do not turn use rationality as a cover for contemptuous views of others
Do not presuppose you know better than others what’s good for them
Do not try to do good in spite of people, or against their consent
If “rationality”, “science” or “efficiency” lead you to extraordinarily strange, “yuck” actions that cause direct harm to others, there’s a good chance the “yuck” factor is not just your irrationality speaking. You’re probably just wrong.